How outing conditions relate to the motivation of movement-restricted cattle to access an outdoor exercise yard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing animal motivation to access a given resource is one method available to evaluate what to provide in the living environments of captive animals. Providing increased opportunities for movement can be seen as an important source of enrichment, but we need to know the point of view of the animal. The objective of our study was to test a novel combination of behaviours in order to assess the motivation of cows to access an outdoor exercise paddock. Three trials were conducted, each enrolling 15-16 tie-stall-housed cows as a model for movement-restricted animals. Cows were provided with access to an outdoor exercise yard 5 days/week for the duration of the trial, each trial presenting different conditions such as paddock size, duration of access and animal handling. We recorded the trips' durations and cows' behaviours during the trips going to (go-out) and coming back (go-in) from the paddock. LMr comparisons on PCA were used to assess cow motivation profiles. The same two dimensions of speed and stop quality emerged from the PCA in all three trials, showing the method's robustness. Additionally, three motivation profiles were established, representing how the cows' motivation was affected by the conditions prevailing in each trial.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".