Weight distribution and gait in dairy cattle are affected by milking and late pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increased interest in automated methods for lameness detection, such as measures of weight distribution. Still, practical use of such methods depends on knowing the conditions that affect how cows distribute their weight. In 3 experiments, 10, 18, and 12 Holstein cows were trained to stand on a platform that measured the weight placed on each of their legs. The objectives were to evaluate how cows change their weight distribution after milking, after calving, and when standing with the front legs elevated and to evaluate the effect of the udder fill and fetus weight on the gait score. Comparisons before and after milking and before and after calving showed that the weight of milk was carried mainly on the back legs, whereas the weight of the fetus was distributed between front (52%) and back legs (48%). The percentage of weight distributed between front and back legs was not affected by elevation of the front legs. Weight shifting between contralateral legs was greater before calving than after; the weight variability over time decreased by 30% after calving. A full udder increased gait score by 0.3 +/- 0.1 and particularly abduction/adduction of the back legs (increased by 83%). Gait score did not change after calving, although the back arch increased by 25%. Therefore, time since milking and state of late pregnancy need consideration when using gait score and measures of weight distribution to detect 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".