The mane effect in the horse (<i>Equus ferus caballus</i>): Right mane dominance enhanced in mares but not associated with left and right manoeuvres in a reining competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A human physical asymmetry is the near 90% clockwise occipitoparietal scalp hair-whorl direction in Europeans, an incidence that approximates the left lateralization of speech and right-handedness. Hair-whorl direction is also asymmetric in horses, Equus ferus caballus and placement is proposed to be related to temperament and lateralized skill in equitation manoeuvres. We describe a hair-whorl asymmetry in the horse, mane direction. Of 526, 3-year-old American Quarter horses, 69% of horses had mane directed to the right and 31% had mane directed to the left. The bias was larger in females, with 74% of females vs. 65% of males having mane directed to the right. Mane direction was unrelated to coat colour. The behavioural significance of mane asymmetry was investigated using judges' scores from a reining competition requiring symmetrical maneuvers of spin, circle and roll-back to either the left or to the right. There was no relation between mane asymmetry and overall reining performance and no relation between mane direction and scores for left or right manoeuvres. The results are discussed in relation to the significance of morphological asymmetries, neural function and the influence of planar cell polarity genes, such as Frizzled, that influence epidermal hair cell patterning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".