Distribution of vertical forces in the pads of Greyhounds and Labrador Retrievers during walking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document peak vertical force (PVF) and vertical impulse (VI) in the pads of Greyhounds and Labrador Retrievers. ANIMALS: 8 Greyhounds and 8 Labrador Retrievers. PROCEDURE: Velocity and acceleration were restricted to ranges of 0.9 to 1.1 m/s and -0.1 to 0.1 m/s2, respectively. The PVF and VI measurements were collected from digital pad (DP)-2, -3, -4, and -5 and the metacarpal pad (McP) or metatarsal pad (MtP) of each limb in each dog. RESULTS: We found no significant differences between the left and right forelimbs or hind limbs for any pad in either breed. Vertical forces in the forelimb were always greater than those in the hind limb. The PVF in the forelimbs of Greyhounds was greatest in DP-3, -4, and -5 and DP-3, DP-4, and the MtP in the hind limbs. The VI in Greyhound forelimbs was greatest in DP-3, -4, and -5 but greatest in DP-4 in the hind limbs. The PVF in the forelimbs of Labrador Retrievers was greatest in the McP, whereas in the hind limbs it was greatest in DP-4. The VI in Labrador Retriever forelimbs was greatest in DP-3, DP-4, and the McP but greatest in DP-3 and -4 in the hind limbs. Significant differences were detected in load distribution between the breeds. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study confirms that DP-3 and DP-4 are major weight-bearing pads in dogs. However, loads were fairly evenly distributed, and DP-5 and the McP or MtP bear a substantial amount of load in both breeds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it