Freestall Maintenance: Effects on Lying Behavior of Dairy Cattle
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
In a series of 3 experiments, we documented how sand-bedding depth and distribution changed within freestalls after new bedding was added and the effect of these changes on lying behavior. In experiment 1, we measured changes in bedding depth over a 10-d period at 43 points in 24 freestalls. Change in depth of sand was the greatest the day after new sand was added and decreased over time. Over time, the stall surface became concave, and the deepest part of the stall was at the center. Based on the results of experiment 1, we measured changes in lying behavior when groups of cows had access to freestalls with sand bedding that was 0, 3.5, 5.2, or 6.2 cm at the deepest point, below the curb, while other dimensions remained fixed. We found that daily lying time was 1.15 h shorter in stalls with the lowest levels of bedding compared with stalls filled with bedding. Indeed, for every 1-cm decrease in bedding, cows spent 11 min less time lying down during each 24-h period. In a third experiment, we imposed 4 treatments that reflected the variation in sand depth within stalls: 0, 6.2, 9.9, and 13.7 cm below the curb. Again, lying times reduced with decreasing bedding, such that cows using the stalls with the least amount of bedding (13.7 cm below curb) spent 2.33 h less time per day lying down than when housed with access to freestalls filled with sand (0 cm below curb).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it