Comparison of range of motion in Labrador Retrievers and Border Collies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper was to compare the range of motion in Border Collies to that of Labrador Retrievers. Humeral circumference, thigh circumference and differences between sex and age were also compared. Twenty three (23) healthy Border Collies and 18 healthy Labrador Retrievers were used. A single investigator measured range of motion of the carpus, elbow, shoulder, hip, stifle and tarsus as well as humeral and thigh circumference under field conditions in 23 Border Collies and 18 Labrador Retrievers. Border Collies had a significantly greater range of motion (P<O.001) in all joints than Labrador Retrievers. Sex was a significant predictor of range of motion (P=0.010), but age was not (P=0.400). Range of motion significantly varied by joint (P<0.001) and the effect was different within Border Collies versus Labrador Retrievers (P=0.008). Range of motion did not vary between left and right sides (P=0.365). Considerations of range of motion were made in deciding pathology and progress based on type and breed of dog (sporting, herding, protection). Comparisons were made based on breed and from left side to right side. Key words: Range of motion, goniometry, flexion, extension, and abduction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".