MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768292767 · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13298

A 100-Year Review: Animal welfare in the Journal of Dairy Science—The first 100 years

2017· review· en· W2768292767 on OpenAlex
M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, Daniel M. Weary

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersZoetisDairy Farmers of CanadaNovus InternationalOhio State University
KeywordsAnimal welfareWelfareAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineAgricultural scienceBiologyPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines the history and development of research in the area of animal welfare as reflected in the 100 yr that the Journal of Dairy Science has been published. The first paper using the term "animal welfare" was published in 1983; since then (to May 2017), 244 papers that reflect growing interest regarding how farm animals are cared for have been published. Much of the scientific work to date has focused on issues related to cow health, such as lameness, and methodologically many papers use behavioral measures. In addition to this science-based research, the journal has taken on the role of publishing work of social scientists that addresses the role of the human factors relating to animal welfare, including research on citizen, consumer, and farmer attitudes toward welfare issues. We call for further research focused on societal perspectives and for new biological research focused on developing issues, such as cow-calf separation and pasture access.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0080.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.275 · 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