314 A 99 Year Journey on the evolution of health and welfare in Canadian livestock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The symbiotic relationship between humans and animals is so intwined that it can be considered a primary factor in the shaping of modern-day societies, including our current livestock production systems. This relationship is complex and involves the use of animals for food, labor, materials as well as companionship, entertainment and even religious practices. There is no question that significant changes in the care, understanding and acknowledgement of animals as sentient beings have evolved over the past 100 yr. Early misunderstandings of the differences between those advocating for animal rights (any use of animals is unacceptable) versus those advocating for animal welfare (humane use of animals is acceptable) resulted in push back and mistrust by industry stakeholders. Initially, animal welfare advocates promoted basic aspects of animal care such as being treated humanely and ensuring that animals were not subjected to unnecessary suffering. However, current ideology includes the ability of an animal to lead a natural life, taking their feelings and needs into consideration. Advances in veterinary and animal welfare science have been key factors in improving our understanding of optimal animal welfare and its close association with animal health. Examples from Canadian beef cattle production will be used to show how cattle health and welfare have evolved in the past century and will cover painful management procedures, transport, handling, as well as the management of vulnerable and ill cattle. Livestock health and welfare in Canada will continue to evolve and will be shaped by factors including societal views, food safety, production costs, environmental impacts, new technologies and continued research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".