Short communication: Measures of weight distribution and frequency of steps as indicators of restless behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restless behavior, as measured by the steps taken or weight shifting between legs, may be a useful tool to assess the comfort of dairy cattle. These behaviors increase when cows stand on uncomfortable surfaces or are lame. The objective of this study was to compare 2 measures of restless behavior, stepping behavior and changes in weight distribution, on 2 standing surfaces: concrete and rubber. Twelve cows stood on a weighing platform with 1 scale/hoof for 1h. The platform was covered with either concrete or rubber, presented in a crossover design. Restlessness, as measured by both the frequency of steps and weight shifting (measured as the standard deviation of weight applied over time to the legs), increased over 1h of forced standing on either concrete or rubber. A positive relationship was found between the frequency of steps and the standard deviation of weight over 1h for both treatments and pairs of legs (r ≥ 0.66). No differences existed in the standard deviation of weight applied to the front (27.6 ± 1.6 kg) or rear legs (33.5 ± 1.4 kg) or the frequency of steps (10.2 ± 1.6 and 20.8 ± 3.2 steps/10 min for the front and rear pair, respectively) between rubber and concrete. Measures of restlessness are promising tools for assessing specific types of discomfort, such as those associated with lameness, but additional tools are needed to assess comfort of non-concrete standing surfaces.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".