MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062687208 · doi:10.1017/s1751731108003194

Gait assessment in dairy cattle

2008· article· en· W2062687208 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venueanimal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamenessUdderGaitAnimal welfareReliability (semiconductor)Physical medicine and rehabilitationGait analysisDairy cattleLimitingMedicinePhysical therapyMastitisAnimal scienceBiologyEngineeringSurgeryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lameness is one of the most important dairy cow welfare issues and has inspired a growing body of literature on gait assessment. Validation studies have shown that several methods of gait assessment are able to successfully distinguish cows with and without painful pathologies. While subjective methods provide an immediate, on-site assessment and require no technical equipment, they show variation in observer reliability. On the other hand, objective methods of gait assessment provide accurate and reliable data, but typically require sophisticated technology, limiting their use on farms. In this critical review, we evaluate gait assessment methods, discuss the reliability and validity of measures used to date, and point to areas where new research is needed. We show how gait can be affected by hoof and leg pathologies, treatment of these ailments and the pain associated with lameness. We also discuss how cow (e.g. conformation, size and udder fill) and environmental features (e.g. flooring) contribute to variation in the way cows walk. An understanding of all these factors is important to avoid misclassifying of cows and confounding comparisons between herds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it