Short Communication: Dominance in Free-Stall—Housed Dairy Cattle Is Dependent upon Resource
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective was to assess the consistency in competitive success across 3 common resources available to dairy cows housed in free-stall barns. Specifically, we determined if those cows that displaced other cows most often at the feed bunk (high-ranking) had priority of access to free-stalls or a mechanical brush. Our secondary objective was to determine if the displacements at each resource were a function of usage of that resource. These objectives were tested using 6 groups of 12 lactating dairy cows housed in pens with 0.6 m of bunk space per cow, 1 free-stall per cow, and 1 mechanical brush per pen. Time-lapse video was used to quantify the time spent feeding, in the stalls, and using the mechanical brush. The incidence of displacements at the feed alley and lying area was measured for 3 d consecutively. Usage was lower for the brush, so displacements were monitored for 14 d consecutively. The individual measures of competitive success were not highly correlated between resources indicating a cow that frequently displaced other cows for access to one particular resource did not always do so when accessing the other resources. Competition at the feeder was responsible for 87.6 +/- 1.4% of displacements observed throughout the experiment, indicating that gaining access to feed was a high priority for cows. These results suggest that competitive success by dairy cows may vary according to each cow's motivation to access the resource.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".