Effect of optical defocus on performance of dogs involved in field trial competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of induced myopia on field trial performance in dogs. ANIMALS: 7 Labrador Retrievers and 1 Chesapeake Bay Retriever trained in field trial competition. PROCEDURES: Dogs were commanded to retrieve targets at 137.2 m (150 yards). Each dog participated in 3 trials while their eyes were fitted with 0- (plano), +1.50-, or +3.00-diopter (D) contact lenses, applied in random order. Retrieval times were measured objectively, and dog performances were evaluated subjectively by masked judges. RESULTS: Retrieval times were significantly faster with plano lenses than with +1.50- or +3.00-D lenses, but there were no significant differences in times between +1.50- and +3.00-D lenses. Masked judges assigned the best performance scores to dogs with plano lenses and the lowest scores to dogs fitted with +3.00-D lenses. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Even mild myopic defocusing had a significant negative impact on both the subjective and objective assessments of dogs' performances. Dogs with demanding visual tasks or signs of visual deterioration should be evaluated retinoscopically to determine the refractive state because they may have ametropia.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".