MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165144533 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20064692

Feeding Behavior Identifies Cows at Risk for Metritis

2006· article· en· W3165144533 on OpenAlexaff
J.M. Huzzey, G. Urton, Daniel M. Weary, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetritisCullingMedicineIce calvingHerdEnvironmental healthAnimal sciencePregnancyVeterinary medicineBiologyLactation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identification of sick animals is a key component of any dairy herd health program. Metritis, one common disease following calving, can be a costly disease to producers. These costs are incurred by increased days open, lower first-service conception, more inseminations, and failure to become pregnant, leading to involuntary culling. Clearly, an improved ability to identify or predict metritis will help avoid these costs by aiding prevention and early treatment. Previous research has indicated that cows with lower feed intakes are more likely to be diagnosed with metabolic and infectious diseases during the transition period. However, changes in feed intake must ultimately result from changes in feeding behavior. Moreover, feeding behavior has been shown to predict morbidity in feedlot steers and may be similarly useful for prediction of disease in transition dairy cows. There is little opportunity to monitor individual feed intake on commercial farms due to prohibitive costs; however, electronic monitoring of feeding behavior shows greater promise for commercial application. This paper will present and discuss studies conducted by our research group that provide evidence that changes in prepartum feeding behavior can be used to identify cows at risk of postpartum metritis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference ProceedingsSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207