MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163742546 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20153575

assessment of two measuring devices for estimation of body weight in newborn beef and dairy calves

2015· article· en· W3163742546 on OpenAlexaff
M. Claire Windeyer, Colin W. Palmer, Elizabeth R. Homerosky, C. A. Murray, E. A. Major, K.P. Kwong, J. M. Stookey, John Campbell, K.E. Leslie

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEffects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphNutreco (Canada)University of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody weightCircumferenceGirth (graph theory)Animal scienceBeef cattleMathematicsMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calf birth weight is an important factor that can impact cow and calf health as well as performance on beef, dairy, and veal operations. Methods of estimating weight on-farm without the use of a scale have been developed, the most common of which are measuring tapes that determine the circumference around either the fetlock or girth of a calf. Despite the potential utility of these devices, there is a paucity of peer-reviewed research that evaluates their accuracy. Furthermore, many of the previous studies have not used appropriate statistical methodology to assess the agreement between 2 continuous measures. The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement of commonly-used measuring devices with actual body weight of neonatal beef and dairy calves.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference ProceedingsSame topicEffects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockFrench-language works237,207