An Observational Study of the Effects of Therapeutic Hoof Blocks on the Locomotion, Behavior, and Production of Healthy Dairy Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therapeutic hoof blocks have been recommended for treatment of sole ulcers in dairy cattle; however, they are underutilized in the industry. Twenty Holstein cows were randomly assigned to receive a wooden hoof block applied to the left hind leg (n = 5), to the right hind leg (n = 5), or no hoof blocks (n = 10). Accelerometers were affixed to both hind legs of 10 blocked cows and 5 control cows. Cows were observed for locomotion scores, and milk production was recorded. Mixed models were constructed to determine effects of block application on behavior, milk production, and locomotion. Activity was altered by day, with cows being most active on Day - 1. The mean number of daily lying bouts and lying bout duration did not differ by treatment. Locomotion scores were higher for blocked cows on Days 1, 2, and 3 compared with baseline; however, milk production did not differ between treatments. In conclusion, although block application affected the appearance of locomotion, it did not appear to adversely affect the behavior or milk production of sound dairy cows.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".