Effect of pen size, group size, and stocking density on activity in freestall-housed dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose was to determine the effects of the physical dimensions of the pen and group size and stocking density on cow activity. Cows (randomly assigned to 4 groups of 6 animals each) were tested in pens with 24 or 12 lying places and in groups with 12 or 6 cows. All groups were tested in each of the 4 treatments with treatment order allocated using a 4 × 4 Latin square. The distance moved and the number of movements were calculated using 5-min scan sampling of video recordings over a 48-h period. Time spent lying down, number of lying bouts, and the duration of each lying bout were recorded using activity sensors. Displacements at the feed bunk were assessed by continuous analysis of video for 3h after the delivery of the fresh feed in the afternoon. Cows moved greater distances when kept in a large versus small pens (330.2 vs. 270.1 ± 11.6 m/d; mean ± SE), irrespective of group size. Cows moved more often when kept in the larger pen (21.3 vs. 19.2 ± 0.63% of scans). The time spent lying down decreased when density increased (59.1 vs. 55.8 ± 2.3% of scans at 25% and 100% stocking, respectively). Treatment had no effect on the number of displacements at the feed bunk. Physical dimensions of the pen play an important role in how much cows move, and stocking density affects lying time.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".