MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107921145 · doi:10.3390/ani10122255

The Use of Hides during and after Calving in New Zealand Dairy Cows

2020· article· en· W3107921145 on OpenAlexaff
Gosia Zobel, Kathryn L. Proudfoot, Vanessa M. Cave, F.J. Huddart, James R. Webster

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersMinistry of Business, Innovation and Employment
KeywordsIce calvingStockingAnimal scienceBiologyDairy cattleAnimal husbandryLactationEcologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolation during calving is a common dairy cow behavior, however it has not been examined in large outdoor group settings. The provision of "hides" was monitored for its impact on calving location and cow-calf behavior. Stocking density and bedding management were either controlled (Phase 1) or managed according to farm practice (Phase 2). Hides were used for calving by 18% (Phase 1) and 22% (Phase 2) of the cows; a further 59% and 44% of cows moved into the hides after calving (Phase 1 and 2, respectively). When hides were not available, cows calved near the edges of the calving area. In Phase 2, as stocking density increased, cows tended to use the hides less. Older cows were less likely to isolate regardless of management. Cow-calf interaction with other cows and calves was lower when hides were available. There was no evidence that hides reduced incorrect matching of cows and calves by staff, however cases of "mismothering" (i.e., calves being taken by other dams) were observed. Since the majority of cows used the hides at some stage before or after calving, we suggest opportunities for seclusion should be provided in large calving groups.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207