MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758015950 · doi:10.15232/pas.2017-01620

Review: Transportation of commercial finished cattle and animal welfare considerations

2017· article· en· W2758015950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah J. Schuetze, E. F. Schwandt, Ronaldo G. Maghirang, Daniel U. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Professional Animal Scientist · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Supply Chain Traceability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorAnimal welfareMicroclimateDuration (music)WelfareBusinessQuality (philosophy)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental healthNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceEcologyPsychologyMedicineEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the following report was to review and present the literature focused on the topic of current industry practices of land transport of finished cattle, primarily within the United States and Canada. This review was broken down into 5 areas: (1) microclimate, (2) loading density, (3) duration of transport, (4) quality of transport, and (5) animal behavior. All of these factors play a role in animal welfare and have been shown to influence post-transport animal health and carcass quality. Certain stressors such as loading density and duration are more understood than others and are easier to manipulate, whereas other stressors, such as microclimate and human factors, require more research to fully understand the magnitude and interactions of the stressors and how to address them. Improving the overall transport process ensures the safety and well-being of the animal and the quality of the carcass, providing both an ethical and economic benefit.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Professional Animal ScientistSame topicFood Supply Chain TraceabilityFrench-language works237,207