Comparison of the trotting gaits of Labrador Retrievers and Greyhounds
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 compare the trotting gaits of Labrador Retrievers and Greyhounds to determine whether differences in locomotion are attributable to differences in their manner of moving or to body size and shape differences between these 2 breeds. ANIMALS: 8 healthy 5-month-old Greyhounds and 5 healthy Labrador Retrievers between 6 and 18 months old. PROCEDURE: A series of 4 force platforms was used to record independent ground reaction forces on the forelimbs and hind limbs during trotting. Values of stride parameters were compared between breeds before and after normalization for size differences. Standard values of absolute and normalized stride period and stride length were determined from linear regressions of these parameters on relative (normalized) velocity. Forces were normalized to body weight and compared at the same relative velocity. RESULTS: Greyhounds used fewer, longer strides than the Labrador Retrievers to travel at the same absolute speed. After normalization for body size differences, most measurable differences between breeds were eliminated. Subtle differences that did persist related to proportion of the stride that the forefoot was in contact with the ground, timing of initial hind foot contact relative to initial forefoot contact, and distribution of vertical force between the forelimbs and hind limbs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that apparent differences in the trotting gait between Labrador Retrievers and Greyhounds are mainly attributable to differences in size, and that dogs of these 2 breeds move in a dynamically similar manner at the trot.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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