Effect of harness design on the biomechanics of domestic dogs ( <i>Canis lupus familiaris</i> )
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harnesses have become increasingly popular and whilst there are benefits to harnesses, the impact of harness design on canine biomechanics, and thus physical health and welfare is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of three popular commercially available harnesses on canine locomotion in 66 domestic dogs. Dogs were filmed moving on a loose lead over a Tekscan Strideway gait analysis system. Stride length as a proportion of limb length (calculated as distance from the elbow to the floor), body weight distribution in the front versus the hind limbs (%), and minimum and maximum apparent angles of the lateral epicondyle of humerus (LEH) and greater tubercle of humerus (GTH) during the motion cycle were measured. Except for GTH angles, there were significant differences in all the investigated metrics. Differences varied across breeds/breed types. It is recommended that, when purchasing and fitting harnesses for dogs, owners and harness fitters treat dogs on an individual basis. The impact of pulling in harness on dog gait requires investigation as dogs may experience greater restrictions when pulling than during locomotion on a loose lead.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it