Survey of Saskatchewan beef cattle producers regarding management practices and veterinary service usage.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saskatchewan cow-calf producers (n = 2000) were surveyed to determine what factors were associated with their uptake of veterinary services; how and where they access nutritional information and animal health advice; and whether they were comfortable with having non-veterinarians perform veterinary procedures. The survey response rate was 18.1%. Veterinarians were seen as a primary source of nutritional information and animal health advice. Over the past decade producers have shifted their veterinary service usage from individual animal events to herd-level procedures. Producers who pregnancy check were more likely to be large producers (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.2 to 3.1; P = 0.007), to semen test their bulls (OR = 3.4; 95% CI = 2.0 to 5.8: P < 0.001), analyze their forages (OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.7 to 4.0; P = 0.006), and to farm in the brown versus the gray or dark brown soil zones (P = 0.004). Most (94.0%) respondents had adequate veterinary services within an hour's drive of the farm and 90.4% were satisfied with their veterinary service provider. Approximately 25% of respondents would be comfortable with having a non-veterinarian pregnancy check and attend to prolapses.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".