MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096379585 · doi:10.1136/vr.156.15.478

Kinematic analysis of the gait of 10 labrador retrievers during treadmill locomotion

2005· article· en· W2096379585 on OpenAlex
Dylan N. Clements, M. R. Owen, S. Carmichael, S. W. J. Reid

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Record · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsGaitTreadmillAngular displacementPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGait analysisDisplacement (psychology)Motion analysisBiomechanicsElbowMedicineAnatomyMathematicsPhysical therapyComputer sciencePhysicsPsychologyGeometryComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trotting gait of 10 sound, adult labrador retrievers was analysed using kinematic gait analysis on a purpose-built treadmill using video-based motion analysis software. The maximal angular displacement, minimal angular displacement, average angular displacement, and the maximal positive and negative angular velocities of the right elbow and right stifle were measured over five gait cycles at defined time points during each of five two-minute sessions. The dogs' trotting gait was not repeatable, either for individual dogs during the first session or between sessions, or between dogs at the same time points during a session.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it