Effect of harness design on the biomechanics of domestic dogs ( <i>Canis lupus familiaris</i> )
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".