Effect of Softer Flooring in Tie Stalls on Resting Behavior and Leg Injuries of Lactating Cows
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
To test the advantages of softer flooring in tie stalls, we compared the behavior and injuries of dairy cows housed in tie stalls with either soft rubber mats (n = 12) or concrete flooring (n = 12), both lightly covered with straw. Data were collected for 112 d beginning at 14 DIM (+/-4 d). Cows' general activity was observed continuously for 24 h every 28 d. Behavior was also scored by a scan sampling technique every 14 d such that each cow was observed for a period of 3 min every 12 min. We scored the occurrence of leg lesions and other injuries every 7 d throughout the study. Cows on rubber mats had shorter bouts of lying but the frequency of bouts was higher, leading them to tend to spend more time lying compared with cows housed on concrete. Cows on concrete spent more time standing idle, but there was no difference in the time spent eating. There was no effect of stall flooring on the number of minor abrasions to the legs and body. There was a significantly higher incidence of swelling of the carpus joints for cows housed on concrete. Cows housed on soft rubber flooring appeared to be less hesitant to change posture from lying to standing (and vice versa), and as a result changed posture more frequently and spent more time lying than cows on concrete flooring. The decreased incidence of swelling of the carpus joint for cows on soft rubber mats may have important long-term effects in preventing a variety of leg problems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it