MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408134830 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2025.1519284

Factors influencing Ontario dairy veterinarians’ management and care of down dairy cows

2025· article· en· W4408134830 on OpenAlexaffabout
John E Brindle, D.L. Renaud, Derek B. Haley, T.F. Duffield, Charlotte B. Winder

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDairy cattleAllowance (engineering)Animal scienceDairy farmingVeterinary medicineMilk productionOperations managementBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This cross-sectional study assessed what management practices veterinarians recommended for down dairy cows in Ontario, Canada, and identified factors influencing producers' adoption of protocols. An online survey about veterinary involvement in down cow management was available between February and May 2021, distributed by email through the Ontario Association of Bovine Practitioners (OABP). A total of 48 Ontario bovine veterinarians responded (26.8% response rate). Gender distribution was even between those identifying as male or female (50%), and the majority of respondents were between 30 to 39 years old. Veterinarians most commonly suggested housing down dairy cows in individual pens (40.7%), followed by pasture (29.6%), special pens for three or fewer animals (26%), and special pens for four or more animals (3.7%). Regarding spacing allowance for a down dairy cow, many veterinarians suggested 11.1 (120) to 23.2 (120-250 square feet) square meters (53.3%) per cow. Recommendations for moving down dairy cows included using a sled (62.5%), stone boat (56.3%), front-end loader bucket (45.8%), wheeled cart (20.8%), and hip-lifter (2.1%). For lifting down dairy cows, recommendations included using multiband slings (56.2%), hip lifters (43.8%), floatation tanks (25.0%), single belly slings (14.6%), ropes (4.2%), and hip lifters with additional straps (2.1%). A multivariable linear regression model identified key factors associated with the recommended time to assist a down cow to stand. Specifically, veterinarians who spent over 90% of their working hours annually with dairy cattle recommended assisting cows 14.1 h earlier than those who spent less than 85% of their time working with dairy cattle. Additionally, larger clinics advised waiting 12.4 h longer compared to smaller clinics, and veterinarians who recommended waiting 12-24 h before calling a veterinarian suggested assisting cows 13.8 h later than those recommending a wait of less than 7 h. Implementing a more consistent, evidence-based approach by veterinarians could enhance the care of down dairy cows and support the broader objective of improving management protocols.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207