MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063374601 · doi:10.4141/a03-081

Training cattle to approach a feed source in response to auditory signals

2004· article· en· W2063374601 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ewa Wredle, J. Rushen, A.M. de Passillé, Lene Munksgaard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStiftelsen Lantbruksforskning
KeywordsMilkingConditioningTone (literature)Classical conditioningLatency (audio)Animal scienceAudiologyOperant conditioningPsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsBiologyMedicineStatisticsReinforcementSocial psychologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To help improve cow traffic in automated milking systems, we examined whether heifers could be trained to approach a feeder in response to a tone emanating from their collars. Eighteen dairy heifers were used in four experiments. Ten heifers were trained by operant conditioning. Eight of these heifers approached the feeder more frequently and with a shorter mean latency following the tone than in the control periods (P < 0.05). Four of the heifers were tested in a new location but none of the heifers approached the feeder following the tone. A further eight heifers were trained by classical conditioning. When tethered close to the feeder during training, no animals learned to approach the feeder in response to the tone. When four heifers were trained while loose in the pen and had a second tone that predicted an aversive treatment, the animals approached the feeder more often after the positive tone (P < 0.05). Operant conditioning can be used to train heifers to approach a feeder in response to an auditory signal. Classical conditioning procedures are less effective and the optimal training procedures need to be defined before implementation in automated milking systems. Key words: Dairy cattle, learning, conditioning, auditory signals, automatic milking systems

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.329
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207