MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412457595 · doi:10.1093/tas/txaf072

Ohio horse industry survey: feeding and housing management practices

2025· article· en· W4412457595 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOhio State University
KeywordsDescriptive statisticsDemographicsBreedHorseHorse racingGeographyQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyBusinessAgricultural scienceMarketingAnimal scienceBiologyStatisticsRace (biology)SociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Equine industry housing and feeding management strategies vary widely. Management choices are important as horses spend most of their time in housing environments and demonstrating ingestive/foraging behavior. As of 2023, over 1.4 million Ohioans identified as horse owners and/or enthusiasts. The objectives of this survey were to determine demographics of the Ohio horse industry, commonly used sources of information, knowledge gaps regarding equine management practices, and to explore what may influence equine management choices. Using Qualtrics (Provo, UT), a 52-question online, anonymous survey was made available to Ohio horse owners and industry personnel through local horse organizations and social media from October to December 2023. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics (mean, percentage, frequency) and relationships between variables were explored using Pearson chi-square tests or Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests in SPSS (Armonk, NY). A total of 1,011 usable survey responses were collected. Most respondents had between 1 to 10 yr of horse experience (64%) and identified as primarily white (63%), females (61%), between 35 to 44 yr of age (31%). Quarter Horses (29%) were the most represented breed. Overall, the primary sources of equine management information were internet (15%), veterinarians (14%), and personal contacts (12%). There were differences between respondents’ main source of equine information based on horse owners’ experience level (X2 = 60; P < 0.01) and awareness of resources provided by Ohio State University (OSU) Extension (X2 = 80; P < 0.01). Respondents’ familiarity/use of body condition scoring differed based on awareness of OSU Extension resources (H = 234; P < 0.01). For housing management, most respondents either stalled horses with unlimited turnout (31%) or group housed horses on pasture (32%). For feeding management, most respondents fed concentrates (96%), primarily measuring concentrates either by weight (42%) or visual estimation (46%). However, forages were more commonly fed by visual estimation (52%) rather than by weight (18%). Feeding forage twice per day was most common, regardless of access to pasture (49%) or not (30%). Concentrates were more commonly provided once per day (41%) with 21% feeding twice per day. The results from this study can be used to assist in developing educational opportunities and resources and to design horse management research to benefit Ohio’s equine stakeholders.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.258 · 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