MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147947648 · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19525

Graduate Student Literature Review: The effect of housing systems on movement opportunity of dairy cows and the implications on cow health and comfort

2021· review· en· W3147947648 on OpenAlexafffund
Elise Shepley, E. Vasseur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySte. Anne's Hospital
FundersNovalaitNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsLamenessAnimal welfareLyingMovement (music)Dairy farmingDairy cattleBusinessWelfareProfitability indexAir movementPsychologyMedicineAnimal scienceAgricultureGeographyEconomicsBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intensification within the dairy industry has led to an increase in use of more restrictive indoor housing systems (most commonly tiestalls and freestalls) and less use of the pasture-based housing systems used in past generations. These indoor housing systems are associated with not only a higher level of restriction to cow movement, but also with a higher prevalence of lameness and cow comfort issues on farm, which negatively affects cow welfare, public perceptions, and producer profitability. In looking for solutions to these issues, several studies have investigated different housing and management options that are less restrictive and increase cow movement opportunity. We hypothesized that movement opportunity, briefly summarized as the level of locomotor activity a cow is able to express in her given environment as well as the ease with which said movement can be expressed, can have a direct, substantial effect on cow comfort as well as cow leg and hoof health. Lying behaviors, which serve as common indicators of cow comfort, are affected not only by the ease of movement that comes with providing more movement opportunity within the lying environment, but also by the aforementioned improvements to leg health. This is particularly true regarding the ability to display different lying postures and to rise and lie down with ease. The complexity of the relationship between the different methods by which movement opportunity can be provided to dairy cows and the corresponding effects on outcome measures related to cow health and comfort is an area of research that warrants exploration. In this literature review, we sought to identify how level of movement opportunity, provided though different housing systems and management practices, affects cow hoof and leg, udder, and reproductive health, as well as the effects that it has on cow lying behaviors that are indicative of comfort.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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