Correlated changes in behavioral indicators of lameness in dairy cows following hoof trimming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cow gait, walking speed, time spent lying down, and distribution of weight among legs when standing during the week before and up to 5 wk after hoof trimming were assessed in 48 lactating Holstein cows housed in freestall pens to examine how changes in gait score following hoof trimming were correlated with other behavioral changes. Gait responses to hoof trimming varied between cows, with the majority showing no change or an increase in gait score. Walking speed was reduced after hoof trimming, and this decrease was maintained during the following 4 wk. The change in walking speed following hoof trimming negatively correlated with the change in gait (r = -0.33). Before hoof trimming, lame cows showed a greater standard deviation of the weight applied to the rear legs (38.4 vs. 27.2; standard error of the difference = 4.6). After hoof trimming, lame cows showed a quadratic increase in the standard deviation of the weight applied to the rear legs and the rear leg weight ratio, whereas no time trend existed for nonlame cows. The change in gait following hoof trimming was negatively correlated with the change in leg weight ratio (r = -0.44). Before hoof trimming, lame cows spent more time lying down each day than nonlame cows (801.7 vs. 731.7 min/d; standard error of the difference = 29.7). Both lame and nonlame cows increased the time they spent each day lying down after hoof trimming, and daily lying time remained higher for up to 5 wk after hoof trimming. The change in time spent lying down after hoof trimming was correlated with the change in gait (r = 0.30) and the change in leg weight ratio (r = -0.47). Using automated methods of lameness detection shows promise as a way of continuously monitoring animals to detect changes in behavior associated with the onset of or recovery from lameness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".