MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401014894 · doi:10.3168/jdsc.2024-0601

How dairy heifers initially respond to freestalls: The effect of neck-rail placement

2024· article· en· W4401014894 on OpenAlexaff
M. Gaworski, Kathryn J. McLellan, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, Daniel M. Weary

Bibliographic record

VenueJDS Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStall (fluid mechanics)Animal sciencePhysicsBiologyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dairy heifers are often kept on open packs early in life and later transitioned to freestalls. The neck rail in freestalls acts as a barrier intended to prevent animals from entering too far in the stall, with the aim of improving stall cleanliness. Unfortunately, this barrier can hinder stall use and may be a hazard to animals due to physical contact, perhaps especially when animals first learn to use the stall. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of 2 different neck-rail positions on frequency of stall use (for lying and standing) and misuse (standing or lying backward in the stall and lying down outside of the stall) by dairy heifers when first introduced to freestall housing. A secondary aim was to measure, via the use of an instrumented neck rail, the maximum force (N) with which heifers contacted this part of the stall. Holstein heifers (n = 8 per treatment) were randomly assigned to one of 2 neck-rail positions: 110 and 130 cm (as measured diagonally from the inside of the rear curb to the bottom of the instrumented neck rail, 0.7 m above the bedded stall surface). Animals were tested individually and responses were measured for 6 h following introduction to the freestalls. On average (median, minimum, maximum), heifers lay down 3.5 (0, 6) times in the freestall when the neck rail was positioned at 130 cm versus 0 (0, 4) times at 110 cm. Heifers also were more likely to stand fully in the stall when the neck rail was positioned at 130 cm versus 110 cm (3.5, 0, 9 vs. 1, 0, 3), and were also more likely to stand backward in the stall (3, 0, 5 vs. 0, 0, 1). In contrast, heifers tested at the 130 cm position were rarely observed lying down outside of the stall (1, 0, 4), whereas this behavior was more common at the 110 cm treatment (4, 0, 7). Contrary to our expectation, the force with which heifers contacted the neck rail was higher in the 130 cm versus 110 cm treatment (337, 6, 548 vs. 78, 26, 403 N). We conclude that neck-rail position acts as a barrier for naïve heifers, such that a more restrictive position reduces the likelihood that heifers use the stall correctly.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJDS CommunicationsSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207