MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190451416 · doi:10.1002/vro2.19

Risk factors for digital dermatitis in free‐stall‐housed, Canadian dairy cattle

2021· article· en· W3190451416 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ellen de Jong, K. Frankena, Karin Orsel

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Record Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyAgriculture Funding ConsortiumDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsStall (fluid mechanics)Dairy cattleBusinessAnimal scienceBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive analysis of the relation between digital dermatitis (DD) and cow and herd characteristics in Canadian dairies is currently lacking. METHODS: A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed using 12,260 cow records from 62 dairy farms to assess association between 27 cow and herd-level variables, and presence of DD. RESULTS: The odds for a cow to have at least 1 DD lesion were higher in first-parity cows and those in later lactation (≥45 days in milk). Housing cows on a concrete base was associated with higher odds (OR 2.24) for DD when bedding was added once a week or less. Bedding the concrete base more frequently reduced odds for DD. Wood shavings or other bedding types were more positively associated with DD (OR 2.31 and 1.87, respectively) compared to sawdust. Also, the odds of DD were lower on farms with a scraping manure frequency of every 2 h compared to less frequent scraping (OR 0.54). CONCLUSION: Nine risk factors for DD were identified and quantified, with stall base, bedding type, and manure scraping frequency associated with lower odds of DD. DD prevalence could be reduced by implementing management practices for first-parity cows, as they had higher odds of DD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary Record OpenSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207