MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744730768 · doi:10.2527/asasann.2017.014

014 Benchmarking indicators of compromised and unfit conditions in cattle arriving at auctions and abattoirs in Alberta

2017· article· en· W2744730768 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. E. M. Heuston, A. Greter, N. Diether, M. A. Moggy, Murray Jelinski, Claire Windeyer, D. Moya, Edmond A. Pajor, E. D. Janzen, K. S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Conservation AssociationUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeeder cattleBeef cattleDairy cattlePopulationAgricultural scienceGeographyHerdAnimal scienceWelfareVeterinary medicineBiologyMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transport and sale of compromised and unfit cattle is a major welfare concern. A compromised animal is defined as having reduced capacity to withstand the stress of transport but where transport with special provisions will not result in undue suffering. Currently, there is a lack of information regarding the occurrence and conditions of compromised cattle arriving at central assembly points. A pilot study was conducted to document the incidence of cattle arriving at auctions and abattoirs in a compromised condition within Alberta (Canada) and to characterize which conditions were most prevalent. A total of 8 out of 22 auction markets and 11 out of 43 provincial abattoirs were selected based on annual sale/slaughter volumes and geographic location. Auction volumes were defined as selling ≥65,000 cattle/yr (large) and <65,000 cattle/yr (small). Abattoir volumes were defined as slaughtering <275 cattle/yr (low), between 276 and 543 cattle/yr (medium), or >543 cattle/yr (high). Each population was further stratified by age (80% market and 20% cull cattle) based on historical data. Over a 3 mo period, 19 sites were visited once (17 sites were visited by 2 observers and 2 sites were visited by 1 observer) to assess indicators of compromised condition in a representative proportion of cattle (n = 936; 847 auction cattle and 89 abattoir cattle). The conditions assessed included mobility (5 point scale), respiratory signs (modified DART 5 point scale), body condition (BCS; 5-point scale), and heavy lactation (yes/no) and assigned an overall score for compromised condition (5 point scale: normal [1], mild [2], moderate [3], severe [4], and unfit for transport [5]). Cattle were defined as compromised if they had a mobility or respiratory score of ≥3, BCS of ≤1.5, heavy lactation (yes), or an overall compromised condition score of >3. Data for a particular animal were removed when disagreement between observers was greater than 1 score. The percentage of cattle defined as compromised based on mobility, respiratory signs, BCS, heavy lactation, and overall compromised condition score were 1.26, 0, 0.80, 0.92, and 1.38%, respectively, for auction cattle and 15.7, 2.25, 2.25, 0, and 22.5%, respectively, at abattoirs. Mobility was the most prevalent compromised condition observed in both populations. Except for heavy lactation, the prevalence of all compromised conditions was greater in abattoirs than in auction markets. Characterizing the indicators of compromised conditions in this benchmarking study allows for the identification of important conditions to aid in the development of intervention strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207