Health performance of feeder calves sold at conventional auctions versus special auctions of vaccinated or conditioned calves in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare health performance during the first 28 days in the feedlot for vaccinated or conditioned feeder calves sold through special auctions in Ontario with health performance for calves sold through conventional auctions in the province. DESIGN: Cohort study. ANIMALS: 12,313 calves sold through conventional and special auctions at the Keady Livestock Market during the fall of 1999 and 2000. PROCEDURE: Buyers of calf groups were approached at the auction market or contacted by telephone and asked to record the number of calves requiring treatment for bovine respiratory tract disease (BRD) during the first 28 days after purchase. RESULTS: 211 calf groups (> or = 20 calves/group) were followed up for 28 days after purchase. Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that vaccinated calves purchased through special auctions were 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.93) times as likely to receive treatment for BRD as were calves purchased at conventional auctions and that conditioned calves were 0.22 (95% confidence interval, 0.12 to 0.38) times as likely to receive treatment. Groups that received antimicrobials by injection on arrival at the feedlot were 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.96) times as likely to be treated as were groups that did not. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that vaccinated and conditioned calves were less likely to receive treatment for BRD during the first 28 days in the feedlot; however, there was no difference in mortality rate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".