Attitudes of western Canadian dairy farmers toward technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dairy farms have become more reliant on technology. The overall aim of this study was to better understand how dairy farmers view technology and its effects on animal care, including their views on the prospect of integrating gene-editing technology in the future. Virtual-semistructured interviews were conducted with dairy farmers (n = 11) from British Columbia and Alberta. To facilitate discussion, the participants were asked to develop and discuss a timeline describing when and why various technologies were adopted on their farm. Although farmers defined technology broadly and affecting multiple aspects of farm management, this paper focuses on their views regarding how technology can affect animal care. Following thematic analysis of the data, the following 3 themes emerged: (1) the changing role of the farmer (including intergenerational considerations and learning new technology), (2) the effect of technology on the cow and her relationship with the farmer and, (3) technology as the future of the farm. The discussions also highlight the concerns that some farmers have regarding challenges associated with reduced human-animal interactions and effective use of the large amounts of data that are collected through technology. We also specifically asked the participants their views about gene editing as a potential future technology. Most of the participants did not specifically address their views on gene editing, but they spoke about the effect on genetic technologies more generally, often making references to genomic testing. However, some questioned how this technology may affect farmers more generally and spoke about how it could affect human-animal relationships. These results illustrate differences among farmers in the way they view technology and how this can affect the dairy cattle they care for.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".