MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210581537 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2021-0109

Testing the ability of contact mats to identify problematic stall configurations

2022· article· en· W4210581537 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
A. Zambelis, E. Vasseur

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySte. Anne's Hospital
FundersNovalaitDairy Farmers of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsStall (fluid mechanics)MathematicsControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparing the frequency of cow contact with stall rails across multiple stall designs may help to determine which stall configurations best promote cow ease of movement and reduce injury risk. The objective of this study was to compare the frequency of cow contact with the dividers across different stall treatments using the contact mat (CM) system to identify problematic stall designs. A total of six stall treatments were each tested against for six consecutive weeks against control (CON) stall condition: three treatments that modified the placement of the tie-rail (TRFARM, TRNEW1, TRNEW2) and three separate treatments that increased chain length (LCL), doubled stall width (DSW), and shortened manger wall (SMW) height. CM were affixed to the stall dividers to record the frequency of cow contact per second. Cows were ranked in descending order from highest frequency of divider contact to lowest frequency of divider contact for each week. TRNEW1 and TRNEW2 were the only stall treatments with a consistently lower frequency of divider contact than CON, whereas DSW was consistently higher than CON. The results suggest that the CM system can be used to identify problematic stall configurations to independently substantiate findings related to cow comfort.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207