Preferences of Dairy Cattle for Supplemental Light-Emitting Diode Lighting in the Resting Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light from the environment is important for vision and regulating various biological processes. Providing supplemental lighting in the stall area could allow for individually targeted or group-level control of light. This study aimed to determine whether dairy cattle had preferences for short-term exposure to white (full-spectrum) light-emitting diode (LED) light or no LED light, yellow-green or white LED light, and blue or white LED light in the stall area. In total, 14 lactating cows were housed in a free-stall pen with unrestricted access to 28 stalls. LED light was controlled separately for each side of the stall platform. Two combinations of light were tested per week, and each week consisted of three adaptation days and four treatment days. Lying behaviour and video data were recorded continuously using leg-mounted pedometers and cameras, respectively. Preference was assessed by the amount of time spent lying and the number of bouts under each light treatment. No differences occurred between treatments within each week for daily lying time and number of bouts. Similarly, no differences occurred between treatments within each time period. Further controlled studies of long-term exposure to different LED wavelengths and intensities are required to determine potential benefits on metabolic processes.
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".