MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hoof Pathologies Influence Kinematic Measures of Dairy Cow Gait

2005· article· en· W1965429986 on OpenAlexafffund
F.C. Flower, David J. Sanderson, Daniel M. Weary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsHoofGaitSTRIDEGait cycleMedicineGait analysisDairy cattleLamenessKinematicsAnimal sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBiologyAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explore how hoof pathologies affect the gait of dairy cattle, we studied gait profiles of cows with no visible injuries (n = 17), sole lesions (n = 14), and sole ulcers (n = 7). Video recordings of dairy cows were digitized using motion analysis software to calculate 6 stride variables for each hoof. Compared with cows with sole ulcers, healthy cows walked faster (1.11 +/- 0.03 vs. 0.90 +/- 0.05 m/s, mean +/- SEM), had shorter stride durations (1.26 +/- 0.03 vs. 1.48 +/- 0.05 s), and longer strides (139.5 +/- 2.1 vs. 130.0 +/- 3.2 cm). Percentage of triple support in the gait cycle (time when cattle were supported by 3 legs) more than doubled for cows with sole ulcers compared with healthy cows (42 vs. 18%). Gait differences were likely due to cows reducing the load on an affected leg. Few differences were detected between healthy cows and those with sole lesions, perhaps because of variation in number, severity, and location of injuries. Kinematic gait analysis is a promising approach in understanding how hoof pathologies affect dairy cow gait.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations156
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207