Overstocking Reduces Lying Time in Dairy Cows
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
Our objective was to understand the effect of overstocking on the lying and standing behavior of dairy cattle. We manipulated freestall availability by providing 12, 11, 10, 9, or 8 freestalls to 12 cows (n = 4 groups, 12 cows/group), thus creating stocking levels of 100, 109, 120, 133, and 150%, respectively. Treatments were applied for a week at a time in a switchback design. Each group returned to the 100% stocking level after exposure to the other treatments. In addition to lying and standing behavior, we measured each cow's ability to displace others from the freestall to understand the interaction between social status and response to overstocking. When groups of cows had fewer stalls available, they spent less time lying down. There was no effect of overstocking on time spent standing with only the front legs in the stall. Instead, cows compensated for the reduced lying times by spending more time outside of the stall. When fewer stalls were available, animals were more likely to be displaced from stalls. The cow's ability to displace others from the stalls, however, did not explain the magnitude of their reduction in lying time when provided with fewer freestalls. Due to increased competition for stalls, cows lay down sooner at 150% than at the 100% level. Stall use was more uniform across time and across stalls within the pen when fewer freestalls were available. In conclusion, when cows had access to fewer freestalls, there was increased competition for stalls, increased time standing outside the stalls, and reduced lying time.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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