MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090709435 · doi:10.4141/a06-074

Relationship between udder and teat conformation and milk yield performance in dairy cows pre- and post-milking

2007· article· en· W2090709435 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nilüfer Sabuncuoğlu, Ömer Çoban

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUdderMilkingLactationBreedAnimal scienceMilk productionDairy cattleBiologyMastitisPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to determine the relationship between udder floor area (UFA) and milk production traits in dairy cows, pre- and post-milking, as well as to examine the usefulness of a simple method of measuring UFA. The absolute reduction (AR, cm2) and relative reduction (RR, %) in UFA post-milking relative to pre-milking was calculated. Absolute reduction was influenced by breed and lactation stage, but not by parity of the cows (P < 0.05). There was no effect of breed and stage of lactation on the RR of UFA. Moderate correlations were observed between absolute reduction of UFA and daily milk yield (r2 = 0.422), lactation milk yield (r2 = 0.426), and absolute fat yield (r2 = 0.515) (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05). Moderate and weak correlations were found between RR of UFA and daily milk yield (r2 = 0.335) (P < 0.01), AR of the udder area and the 305-d lactation milk yield (r2 = 0.326) (P < 0.10). It was concluded that measuring UFA using the method described may be useful for the selection of dairy cattle mammary conformation traits. Key words: Dairy cow, udder and teat conformation, milk production traits, measurement technique

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207