MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410062459 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20259227

Euthanasia decision making in ranches and feedlots

2025· article· en· W4410062459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joyce Van Donkersgoed

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners
KeywordsEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beef cattle production veterinarians have a responsibility to train their clients and help them make appropriate and timely treatment, culling/railing, euthanasia and emergency sal­vage slaughter decisions. There may be times, though, that veterinarians do not agree with their client’s decision on the treatment or final disposition of a distressed or compromised animal, which will be frustrating. To be credible production animal veterinarians whom clients trust, and thus, are more likely to follow recommendations, veterinarians must under­stand beef production economics and practical, logistical reali­ties on each beef cattle operation and take these into consider­ation when providing advice. There are well documented beef industry animal health, welfare and transportation guidelines for sick and compromised cattle from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA),14-16 Animal Health Canada,7,10 Canadi­an Cattlemen’s Association (CCA),22 U.S. (USRSB) and Canadian Roundtables of Sustainable Beef (CRSB),11,21 and Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization (PAACO).8,20 For vet­erinarians, there are similar guidelines from the American Vet­erinary Medical Association (AVMA)5 and American Associa­tion of Bovine Practitioners (AABP).1-3 There may be additional federal or state/provincial regulations for the transport of compromised cattle that veterinarians and producers must be aware of.9 It is our responsibility as veterinarians to be famil­iar with the most current versions of these animal health and welfare guidelines and regulations, before advising our clients. Armed with current scientific, industry, and regulatory infor­mation, veterinarians can help their clients reduce the number of compromised animals in their beef cattle operations through preventive herd health programs and animal husbandry prac­tices. When that fails, veterinarians can then help their beef clients make informed, objective and timely decisions on the fi­nal disposition of their compromised cattle, which are in the best interest of the animal and the client’s financial bottom line.

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)0.001
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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference ProceedingsSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207