Components of variation of surface hoof strain with time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative contribution of a number of random and fixed variables to variation in surface strain magnitudes on the hoof capsule was assessed for healthy feet under normal conditions. Principal strains were recorded in vivo from 5 rosette gauges glued around the circumference of the right forefeet of 4 horses on 4 occasions over a 9 month period. Recordings were made at every other trimming and reshoeing. During each session, gauges were positioned with a template for repeatability. Strains were recorded at the trot and canter (at consistent speeds), for straight motion and turns, and before and after the hoof was trimmed and reset. Up to 30 strides were recorded for each combination of these variables. ANOVAs were performed on midstance strains of 7008 strides to determine the relative contributions to strain variation of individual horse, test day, gait and direction combined as one factor, gauge position on the hoof, trimming, interstride variability and the interactions among these factors. The ANOVA model explained 87% of the variation, of which approximately 84% was due to fixed effects and 16% to random effects. Circumferential position of the gauges and several of the interactions including this term were by far the greatest contributors to strain variation. Differences among gauge positions, individuals and gait + direction are consistent with previous work. This study has added the relative effects, which are small but significant, of trimming on a regular basis and of time. The change in strain magnitudes with trimming was different for each horse, which leads to the possibility that over- and underuse may have to be quantified on an individual basis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".