MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cull Dairy Cow Management in Ontario - Perspectives and Practices by Producers' and Veterinarians

2022· article· en· W4408460133 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
J. A. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessDairy industryAgricultural scienceEnvironmental planningGeographyFood scienceEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decade, the management of cull cows in the dairy industry has been a point of interest for improvement.Regardless of the reason, the removal of cows from dairy herds is referred to as culling. To address welfare concerns, the management of these animals has been a source of recent regulatory changes by government and industryorganizations. Yet, previous research indicates that cows of poor fitness continue to be leaving farms for marketing in the province. This research project aimed to assess how individuals are making culling decisions, perspectives of cullcow management strategies, familiarity with regulatory changes for cull cows, and learning preferences. The datawere collected using two surveys administered separately to Ontario farmers and bovine veterinarians in the last year. The findings highlight the variety of challenges in the management of cull cows, one being the differences in access to destinations for cull cows like shipment directly to slaughter facilities. Additionally, findings demonstratedmissed areas of communications between producers and veterinarians, and the gaps in knowledge regardingregulations and the journey of cull cows. Next steps include further consultation with farmers through focus groups to identify the best strategies for training to improve cull cow welfare and regulatory compliance.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207