Use of pedometers to measure physical activity in dogs
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 determine whether pedometers can be used to measure physical activity in dogs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. ANIMALS: 26 dogs. PROCEDURE: To determine pedometer accuracy, number of steps recorded with the pedometer as dogs walked, trotted, and ran for a distance of approximately 30 m (100 ft) at each gait was compared with actual number of steps. Dogs and owners then wore pedometers for 7 to 14 days, and dog pedometer output was compared with body condition score, owner-reported activity of the dog, and owner pedometer output. RESULTS: Most owners classified their dogs as active or quite active and indicated that their dogs exercised 3 to 7 days/wk. For all dogs, body condition score was 5, 6, or 7 on a scale from 1 to 9. At a walk, pedometers overestimated actual number of steps by approximately 17% in large and medium dogs and underestimated actual number of steps by approximately 7% in small dogs. No significant differences between pedometer-recorded and actual number of steps were detected when dogs trotted or ran. Number of steps per day for the dogs was significantly correlated with owner-reported activity of the dog (r = 0.305) and number of steps per day for the owners (r = 0.469) and was inversely correlated with body condition score (r = -0.554). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that pedometers can measure physical activity in dogs with reasonable accuracy. A lower number of steps per day was associated with a higher body condition score, and less active owners generally had less active dogs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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