Perceived role of the veterinarian in promoting dairy cattle welfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving the lives of animals in agricultural systems has primarily focused on minimizing negative experiences. Research is needed on the promotion of positive experiences (pleasure, enjoyment, play, choice, happiness) for animals and the role of veterinarians in their promotion. Our aims were to describe how Canadian bovine veterinarians and veterinary students perceive the role of a veterinarian in positive vs. negative experiences for dairy cows and to analyze the rationale provided to explain their answers. Canadian veterinary practitioners (n = 78) and veterinary students (n = 148) responded to an online cross-sectional survey and were asked, on a 7-point scale, how important the role of a veterinarian is to promote practices that influence the experience of dairy cows. We used qualitative description to analyse participants’ open-ended text responses. Practices to minimize negative experiences were most important (mean ± SE; 6.8 ± 0.03), a balance of positive and negative experiences was less important (6.4 ± 0.05), and encouragement of positive experiences scored lowest (6.0 ± 0.06), although all scored highly. Four themes were identified to explain participants’ reasoning regarding their perceived role of a veterinarian in the promotion of dairy cattle welfare, centered on: the animal, the producer, the veterinarian, and society. Participants indicated that promoting positive experiences was less important than decreasing negative experiences (5.9 ± 0.09). There were four themes identified to explain participants’ reasoning regarding the relative importance of promotion of positive experiences versus decreasing negative experiences which centered on: frameworks to compare positive and negative experiences, impacts on the animal, the participant’s view of their role, and the practicality of implementation. These results indicate modest differences in valuing avoidance of negative vs. promotion of positive welfare. There were no differences in the quantitative analyses between veterinarians and veterinary students. We conclude that veterinarians are favorably disposed to positive aspects of welfare for dairy cows but may be more focussed on avoidance of negative aspects of welfare.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".