a Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wild animals increase vigilance at the expense of feeding time in response to predation risk or threats from conspecifics. Increased vigilance may therefore indicate increased fear. We tested dairy cattle to determine whether time spent vigilant changed in response to the novelty of their location, the presence of a dog or the presence of an aversive, gentle or unfamiliar handler. We conducted 12 3 min trials per cow on 40 cows tested individually in a large outdoor enclosure containing an attractive food source. The feeders restricted the animal’s view so that it could not feed and scan simultaneously, so vigilance time was defined as any time the animal’s head was raised. During the initial trials, the degree of vigilance was high, but the amount of vigilance decreased significantly with number of trials. Time vigilant was significantly higher in the presence of a dog than in the presence of a human or when neither was present. In a second experiment, 20 cows, that had been trained to recognise an aversive and a gentle person for 3 weeks prior to testing, were tested in an indoor pen containing an attractive food source with the aversive, gentle, or an unfamiliar person nearby. The presence of the aversive person significantly increased vigilance time compared to the unfamiliar and gentle people. However, vigilance time did not decrease with repeated exposure to the enclosure, perhaps because
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.099 | 0.018 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".