Effects of Perching Surfaces and Foot Bandaging on Central Metatarsal Foot Pad Weight Loading of the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pododermatitis is prevalent in falcons and is characterized by inflammation and infection of the plantar aspect of the feet, particularly at the central metatarsal pad. Suboptimal perch design and increased weight loading on the plantar skin have been proposed as major risk factors for the development of pododermatitis. Prevention and treatment are challenging, but weight load reduction on the affected area of the foot is an accepted goal of initial treatment. To date, to our knowledge no studies have compared the performance of different bandage-perch surface combinations on weight redistribution away from the central metatarsal pad. An ex vivo factorial experiment was designed using the feet from a peregrine falcon cadaver to quantify weight load reduction on the central metatarsal pad with different combinations of perch surfaces (wood, neoprene, artificial turf) and bandages (none, interdigital, silicone shoe). Feet were attached to a digital force gauge mounted on a manual test stand for compression testing. Weight loading at the central metatarsal pad was measured using a small force sensor. Perch-surface combinations in randomized order were tested at 250 g, 500 g, and 1 kg with 9 replicates per foot. At 250 g, all combinations reduced measured metatarsal pad forces, but otherwise performed similarly. As compression forces increased, differences emerged with the shoe combinations performing better overall, followed by a group including the neoprene and artificial turf-interdigital bandage combinations, and a third group including the interdigital/wood and no bandage-artificial turf. All combinations performed better than control (no bandage on wood). This study may assist veterinarians in selecting appropriate perching surface/bandage combinations when treating falcons with pododermatitis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".