The effects of cow dominance on the use of a mechanical brush
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An animal's social position within a group can influence its ability to perform important behaviours like eating and resting, but little is known about how social position affects the ability to express what are arguably less important but still rewarding behaviors, such as grooming. We set out to assess if dominance measured at the feeder is associated with increased use of a mechanical brush. Over a 2-year period, 161 dry cows were enrolled in a dynamically changing group of 20 individuals with access to a mechanical brush. We determined dominance using agonistic behaviors at the feeder and retrospectively analyzed brush use for the 12 most, and 12 least dominant individuals during the week before calving. Cows that were more dominant at the feeder used the brush more, especially during peak feeding times. Agonistic interactions at the brush did not differ between dominants and subordinates and were not related to brushing duration. These findings indicate that social position, calculated using competition for feed, affects mechanical brush access such that subordinates use the brush less than dominant cows independent of competition or time of day.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".