When Nursery Pigs are not Approaching a Human Observer What are They Doing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this experiment was to determine the behaviors and postures of nursery aged pigs when classified as “not approaching” a human observer when using a digital image. A total of 1,817, ~6 wk old mixed sexed nursery pigs were used. Pigs were housed in commercial nursery pens. The approachability of pigs followed procedures used by Fangman et al., (2010). Pigs were classified into three categories (1) Approachability (2) Look and (3) Not. Not pigs were further descriptively categorized into four postures (stand, sit, lie and pile) and two behaviors (head in feeder and mouth around drinker). Results will be presented descriptively. A total of 860 pigs were either classified as approaching the observer or looking at the observer, and 957 classified as “Not” (52.7%). Of those pigs classified as “Not” the majority were standing, followed by sitting, and only 2.6% of pigs were classified as piling. Therefore, in conclusion, 97.3% of pigs classified as “Not”, were engaged in behaviors and postures not considered to be fearful of the human in their pen.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".