MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management Practices and Heifer Characteristics Associated with Early Lactation Somatic Cell Count of Belgian Dairy Heifers

2004· article· en· W2115412159 on OpenAlexaff
Sarne De Vliegher, Hans Laevens, Herman W. Barkema, Ian R. Dohoo, Henrik Stryhn, G. Opsomer, Aart de Kruif

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationSomatic cell countAnimal scienceSomatic cellHolstein CattleDairy cattleBiologyIce calvingPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Associations between somatic cell counts (SCC) from heifers between 5 and 14 d in milk (DIM) and both herd-management practices and heifer characteristics were studied for 1912 heifers in 159 dairy herds in Flanders (Belgium). In higher-producing herds and in herds with an average calving age of heifers > 27 mo, SCC of heifers was lower than in less-producing herds or in herds with an average calving age < or = 27 mo. Heifers raised in herds with a higher bulk-milk somatic cell count had higher SCC. In herds in which heifers calved on slatted floors, heifers had lower SCC compared with herds in which heifers calved on nonslatted floors. A significant difference in SCC was observed between provinces. At the heifer level, SCC decreased with increasing DIM. On average, heifers calving in April to June had higher SCC, compared with those calving in the other months of the year. In the multilevel regression models, nearly all the variations of SCC resided at the heifer level, indicating that preventive measures against udder health problems in freshening dairy heifers should, in the short term, focus more on factors that vary between heifers than on factors that vary between herds. However, for the long term, the need to identify new, and to implement known, herd-level strategies is important.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations66
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207