MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410265302

Benchmarks for evaluation and comparison of udder health status using monthly individual somatic cell count.

2014· article· en· W2410265302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fauteux, Roy Jp, Scholl Dt, Émile Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUdderSomatic cell countHerdLactationAnimal scienceBiologyPercentileVeterinary medicineMedicineMastitisIce calvingPregnancyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to propose benchmarks for the interpretation of herd udder health using monthly individual somatic cell counts (SCC) from dairy herds in Quebec, Canada and to evaluate the association of risk factors with intramammary infection (IMI) dynamics relative to these benchmarks. The mean and percentiles of indices related to udder infection status [e.g., proportion of healthy or chronically infected cows, cows cured and new IMI (NIMI) rate] during lactation and over the dry period were calculated using a threshold of ≥ 200 000 cells/mL at test day. Mean NIMI proportion and proportion of cows cured during lactation were 0.11 and 0.27. Benchmarks of 0.70 and 0.03 for healthy and chronically infected cows over the dry period were proposed. Season and herd mean SCC were risk factors influencing IMI dynamics during lactation and over the dry period.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207