Quantitative Comparison of the Walk and Trot of Border Collies and Labrador Retrievers, Breeds with Different Performance Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that breed differences of Border Collies and Labrador Retrievers would be reflected in the temporospatial characteristics of the walk and trot. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty healthy Border Collies and 20 healthy Labrador Retrievers made three passes across a pressure sensing walkway system that recorded quantitative temporospatial information at a walk and a trot. The following variables were measured for each dog: velocity, total pressure index percentage (TPI%), ratio of weight borne on the thoracic vs. pelvic limbs (T/P TPI%), stance time percentage (ST%), and thoracic limb stride length (TSrL). RESULTS: The mean T/P TPI% for Border Collies at a walk and at a trot were significantly lower than for Labrador Retrievers (p = 0.0007 and p = 0.0003). Border Collies had a significantly lower ST% than Labrador Retrievers for the thoracic limbs and pelvic limbs at a walk (p = 0.0058 and 0.0003) and the trot (p = 0.0280 and 0.0448). There was no relationship between ST% and TSrL in Border Collies and an inverse correlation between ST% and TSrL in Labrador Retrievers (p = 0.0002). DISCUSSION: Key quantitative gait differences were identified in Border Collies and Labrador Retrievers, which could potentially provide each breed with an advantage for their working function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".