MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386950055 · doi:10.3168/jdsc.2023-0398

Barriers to recording calf health data on dairy farms in Ontario

2023· article· en· W4386950055 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJDS Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOddsRespondentMedicineOdds ratioBarnDemographicsEnvironmental healthDemographyVeterinary medicineFamily medicineLogistic regressionGeographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishing accurate illness and treatment rates in dairy calves is crucial, yet calf health records are often incomplete. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate barriers for dairy farmers for recording calf illnesses and treatments on dairy farms in Ontario, Canada. An online survey was completed by a convenience sample of 88 Ontario dairy farms in 2022, with 34 questions regarding farm demographics, current practices surrounding record keeping and analysis, and factors that would improve recording compliance. Multivariable models were built to assess associations between explanatory variables and the following outcomes: likelihood of making management or treatment protocol changes based on records analysis, factors that would increase the use of electronic recording methods, and whether all calf illnesses and treatments are recorded. Pearson's chi-squared tests were also used to investigate associations between explanatory variables and whether the respondent agreed or disagreed with a proposed reason for why a calf illness or treatment would not be recorded on their farm. Producers had 3.45 times greater odds of recording all antimicrobial treatments if they used a computer software system compared with those that did not. With respect to anti-inflammatory treatments, producers had 3.11 times greater odds of recording these treatments if records were located in the calf barn than elsewhere. Nonfamily employees had 6.08 times greater odds of recording all supportive therapy treatments than farm owners. When calf health records were kept in the calf barn, respondents were less likely to report that illnesses were not recorded due to time constraints (5% vs. 36% if records were elsewhere) or because calf health records were not analyzed (10% vs. 34% if records were elsewhere). On farms that recorded calf treatments in a paper booklet, respondents were more likely to report that treatments were not recorded because calf health records were not analyzed (44% for paper records vs. 21% for other systems). The most commonly indicated factors that would increase recording of illness were recording with a mobile app (27% of respondents) and for the recording system to be easy to use (31% of respondents). Overall, these data indicate that recording may be improved by keeping calf health records in close proximity to the calves and using a recording method that allows for data analysis. An easy-to-use mobile app may also improve recording if it could be used in the calf barn, provide data analytics, and allow for time-efficient data entry.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.241 · 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