MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592079030 · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11933

Citizens' views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increase acceptability?

2017· article· en· W2592079030 on OpenAlexaff
María José Hötzel, Clarissa Silva Cardoso, Angélica Roslindo, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCiência sem FronteirasFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa CatarinaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsGrazingPosition statementPosition (finance)Separation (statistics)Zero (linguistics)Production (economics)PsychologyBusinessMedicineEconomicsMathematicsFamily medicineBiologyEcologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary aim of this study was to assess the influence of provision of information on lay citizens' opinions regarding 2 common management practices, zero-grazing and cow-calf separation. To aid in the interpretation of the findings, our secondary aim was to explore the awareness and opinions of Brazilian citizens about these practices. We surveyed a convenience sample of Brazilian citizens (192 men and 208 women), recruited in a public place, with the majority stating that they were largely unfamiliar with animal production and lived in urban environments. Participants were presented short scenarios with information on the primary production factors and welfare concerns for and against zero-grazing (n = 200) or cow-calf separation (n = 200). Participants were then asked to state their position (reject, indifferent, or support), and to provide the reason(s) justifying their position. Immediately following, participants were provided a short statement describing either zero-grazing or cow-calf separation, depending on what question they responded to in the first part. Two closed questions (Q) followed each of these statements: (Q1) "Are you aware of this practice?" with choices yes, somewhat, or no, and (Q2) "What is your position regarding this practice?" with choices reject, indifferent, or support. Only 31 and 33% of the respondents were aware of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation, respectively. Previous awareness of existence of practice did not influence levels of support. Provision of information resulted in more people rejecting the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation. Participants' main justifications to reject zero-grazing and cow-calf separation focused on perceived negative effects of practices on farm animal welfare and product quality, and loss of naturalness. Survey participants, Brazilians living in urban environments, with little or no association with dairy production, were generally unaware that many cows do not have access to pasture and that cows are separated from their calf at birth. Independent of provision of additional information, most participants did not support these practices. Provision of brief explanatory information played a minor role in influencing people's views, but failed to result in general acceptance.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations153
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207