MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210947527 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2022.812710

Producer Perceptions Toward Prevention and Control of Lameness in Dairy Cows in Alberta Canada: A Thematic Analysis

2022· article· en· W4210947527 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marlena Knauss, Cindy L. Adams, Karin Orsel

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Agriculture and ForestryMarkedsmodningsfonden
KeywordsLamenessThematic analysisDairy cattleAnimal welfareEnvironmental healthDairy industryBusinessQualitative researchMedicineVeterinary medicineAnimal scienceBiologySociologySurgeryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lameness in dairy cattle poses both an animal welfare and economic threat to dairy farms. Although the Canadian dairy industry has identified lameness as the most important health issue, lameness prevalence in the province of Alberta has not decreased over the last decade. Factors related to lameness have been reported, but the prevalence remains high. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate dairy producers' perceptions on lameness and how these perceptions influence lameness prevalence in their cows. Qualitative interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with nine dairy producers in Alberta, Canada presenting farms with a wide variety of lameness prevalence. Thematic analysis of these interviews revealed five major themes, as well as five distinct types of producers regarding their perceptions. All nine producers mentioned similar challenges with lameness prevention and control. Identifying lameness, taking action, delays in achieving success, various approaches to prevention and control strategies, and differences between farms were the challenges encountered. However, producers' attitudes when dealing with these challenges varied. We concluded that understanding producers' perceptions is essential as no "one size fits all", when advising them regarding how to address lameness, as guidance and support will be most successful when it is aligned with their viewpoint.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207