MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402541301 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.490

PSII-7 Development and assessment of a mobility scoring system for beef cattle

2024· article· en· W4402541301 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paula Olivares Guzman, K. S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, Danisa M. Bescucci, José Ortiz Guluarte, Hardeep Singh Ryait, Majid H. Mohajerani, Robert J. Sutherland, Joyce Van Donkersgoed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeef cattleAnimal scienceBiologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lameness is a disruption of normal gait due to infection, injury, or abnormal conformation, causing pain and discomfort. Several scoring systems have been developed to determine lameness severity; a key indicator in deciding if an animal is fit to withstand transport. However, most scoring systems were developed for dairy cattle and may not be suited for use in feedlot cattle due to the large genetic variation between beef breeds as well as the highly variable environment in which they are housed. Lack of consistency when scoring lameness and reduced ability to detect early lame cattle can result in poor animal welfare and increased costs. The objectives of this study were 1) to develop a mobility scoring system that aids in transport decisions for beef cattle, and 2) to determine observer repeatability using this scoring system. Over a 7-mo period, video cameras were placed in an alley to record the ambulation of individual cattle exiting the processing barn at 4 commercial feedlots in Southern Alberta. Cameras were set to record whole-body videos of cattle walking, running, or trotting. Five researchers trained to use this mobility scoring system, individually evaluated 174 cattle from the collected videos, for fitness for transport and the presence/absence of gait abnormalities: shortness of stride, stiffness (mild, moderate, or severe), limp (mild, moderate, or severe), hip hike, head dropped, head bob, arched back, non-weight bearing, or reluctance to move. The mobility scoring system used was a modified (NCBA and Zinpro) 4-point scale (0-3) for locomotion: 0) an animal with no gait abnormalities; 1) an animal with mild stiffness and shortness of stride; 2) an animal with difficulty taking some steps and one or more of the following: severe stiffness, limp favoring affected limb, limps with a head bob when walking but still bears weight; and 3) an animal reluctant or unable to move, bearing little or no weight on affected limb, the head of the animal is dropped and back arched with pronounced head bob and severe limp detected, or incoordination. Fitness for transport was scored as fit, compromised, or unfit according to the humane transportation guidelines of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. A kappa statistic was calculated to assess inter-observer reliability for both mobility and transport fitness scoring systems as well as gait abnormalities. The combined mobility scores had substantial agreement between observers (Κ = 0.63; P < 0.001). Mobility score of 2 had the highest agreement among all variables (Κ = 0.88; P < 0.001), followed by head bob (Κ = 0.85; P < 0.001), and arched back (Κ = 0.76; P < 0.001). Results of this study will aid in the development of a mobility score that improves industry stakeholder agreement regarding lameness severity and transport loading decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207