Accelerometry-Based Step Count Validation for Horse Movement Analysis During Stall Confinement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative tracking of equine movement during stall confinement has the potential to detect subtle changes in mobility due to injury. These changes may warn of potential complications, providing vital information to direct rehabilitation protocols. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) are readily available and easily attached to a limb or surcingle to objectively record step count in horses. The objectives of this study were: (1) to compare IMU-based step counts to a visually-based criterion measure (video) for three different types of movements in a stall environment, and (2) to compare three different sensor positions to determine the ideal location on the horse to assess movement. An IMU was attached at the withers, right forelimb and hindlimb of six horses to assess free-movement, circles, and figure-eights recorded in 5 min intervals and to determine the best location, through analysis of all three axes of the triaxial accelerometer, for step count during stall confinement. Mean step count difference, absolute error (%) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were determined to assess the sensor's ability to track steps compared to the criterion measure. When comparing sensor location for all movement conditions, the right-forelimb vertical-axis produced the best results (ICC = 1.0, % error = 6.8, mean step count difference = 1.3) followed closely by the right-hindlimb (ICC = 0.999, % error = 15.2, mean step count difference = 1.8). Limitations included the small number of horse participants and the lack of random selection due to limited availability and accessibility. Overall, the findings demonstrate excellent levels of agreement between the IMU's vertical axis and the video-based criterion at the forelimb and hindlimb locations for all movement conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".