MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157575418 · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19833

Herd health and production management visits on Canadian dairy cattle farms: Structure, goals, and topics discussed

2021· article· en· W3157575418 on OpenAlex
Caroline Ritter, Linda Dorrestein, D.F. Kelton, Herman W. Barkema

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicVector-Borne Animal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDescriptive statisticsAgricultural scienceProduction (economics)Duration (music)WelfareHealth management systemMedicineBusinessMathematicsStatisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regular veterinary visits to improve herd health and production management (HHPM) are important management components on many dairy cattle farms. These visits provide opportunities for constructive conversations between veterinarians and farmers and for shifting management from a reactionary approach to proactively optimizing health and welfare. However, little is known about the structure of HHPM farm visits and to what extent veterinarians provide assistance beyond purely technical services. Therefore, our aims in this cross-sectional study were to describe HHPM farm visit structure, determine which dairy-specific topics were discussed, and assess whether the focus of the visits aligned with farmers' priorities. Veterinary practitioners (n = 14) were recruited to record audio and video of regularly scheduled HHPM farm visits (n = 70) using an action camera attached to their chest or head. A questionnaire was distributed to farmers containing closed- and open-ended questions to assess their goals and perceptions related to farm management and HHPM farm visits. Descriptive statistics and negative binomial and Poisson regression models were used to study dairy-specific topics initiated by the farmer or veterinarian during various activities. A mean of 51% of the visit duration was dedicated to transrectal pregnancy and fertility diagnostics, and a considerable amount of time (30%) was spent on visit preparation, transitions between tasks, and leaving. A total of 488 discussions were initiated by either the veterinarian (55%) or the farmer (45%). Mean length of discussions was 2 min, and only 17% of the HHPM visit duration was spent discussing dairy-specific topics. Veterinarians initiated 62% of their discussions about herd issues, whereas farmer-initiated discussions revolved around herd health in 39% of the discussions. Discussion topics most frequently raised by participants included fertility, udder health, calf health and management, and transition diseases. Consistently, farmers' answers to a rank question regarding their main HHPM farm visit goals indicated that their priorities were to have transrectal pregnancy and fertility diagnostics performed and to improve herd fertility and general herd health. Answers to an open-ended question revealed that additional aims of many farmers were to receive information, have questions answered, and identify and discuss problems. A farmer's belief that HHPM farm visits were "absolutely" tailored toward his or her goals was positively associated with number of discussions during the visit and their conviction that they "always" voiced their wishes and needs to the veterinarian. Opportunities to broaden the focus of HHPM farm visits and improve communication between farmers and veterinarians should be identified and veterinarians should be trained accordingly, which would increase veterinarians' ability to add value during HHPM farm visits.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · 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