MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295330327 · doi:10.3389/fanim.2022.999261

Decision tree analysis to evaluate risks associated with lameness on dairy farms with automated milking systems

2022· article· en· W4295330327 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Animal Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLamenessMilkingDairy cattleAnimal scienceMathematicsMastitisVeterinary medicineOperations managementMedicineEngineeringBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lameness is an endemic disorder causing health problems and production losses in the dairy cow industry. The objective of this study was to identify cow and farm-level factors associated with lameness on Automatic Milking System (AMS) farms, using decision tree analysis to assign probabilities to each input. AMS farms across Canada and Michigan were evaluated to identify the most substantial farm (i.e., stall design, bedding) and cow-level (i.e., BCS, leg injuries) factors associated with prevalence of lameness. To assess lameness, videos of cows were used, and cows with a head bob or noticeable limp were categorized as lame. A decision tree classification model used 1378 data points from 39 pens across 36 farms to predict the value of the target class through “tree function” in MATLAB. The primary classifier was identified as type of stall base, dividing the data set into 3 categories: 1) rubber, sand, or geotextile mat flooring, 2) concrete base, and 3) other types of stall base. Within the first category (class membership (CM) = 976), bedding quantity was the secondary classifier, which was divided by cows standing on ≥2 cm (CM=456) or <2 cm (CM=520) of bedding. Bedding quantity was divided into the third most important classifier of BCS, and cow fit stall width. Cows with BCS of 3.25 to 4.5 (CM=307) were defined as non-lame with an estimated probability (EP) of 0.59, while cows with BCS of 2 to 2.5 (CM=213) were further split by hock lesion incidence. Cows without lesions were defined non-lame (EP=0.93) and cows with lesions were defined lame (EP=0.07). Cows that fit stall width were defined as non-lame (EP=0.66) and cows that did not fit were further divided by the width of the feed alley. Farms with ≥430 cm feed alley were defined as non-lame (EP=0.89), whereas farms with <430 cm feed alley were defined as lame (EP=0.11). Through implementing a novel multifactorial approach of data analysis, we were able to highlight the critical points that can be focused on to enhance farm-level housing and management practices or mitigate or monitor cow-level issues to reduce incidence and severity of lameness in AMS farms.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.296 · 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