Proximity of Nursery Pigs from a Human Observer during an Animal-human Interaction Test Before and After Vaccination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this experiment was to determine distance between two anatomical measures in nursery aged pigs to a human observer before and after vaccinations in their home pen using a digital image. Three treatments were compared TRT One: Saline (Saline; n =50), TRT Two: Ingelvac® CircoFLEX-MycoFLEX® (Boehringer-Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., St. Joseph, MO; MCFLEX; n = 48) and TRT Three: Circumvent® PCV-M (MerckAnimal Health, Summit, NJ; Circumvent; n=51). Snout and tail anatomical locations within “touch”, “look” and “not” were determined. Data were analyzed using the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS. There were no (P > 0.05) injection treatment differences for snout or tail base proximities within the behavioral categories. There were no (P > 0.05) differences comparing snout and tail base anatomical location proximities from the observer’s index finger within the “touch”, “look”, and “not” categories across pre- injection treatments. There were no post-injection treatment differences (P > 0.05) for snout or tail base proximities from the human observer when evaluating pigs from the “touch” and “not” categories. However, tail base proximity for MCFLEX pigs was shorter (P < 0.008) in the “look” category compared to Circumvent and saline. Snout proximity to the human observer’s index finger for pigs classified as “look” was greater (P < 0.05) for Circumvent pigs compared to MCFLEX (Table 2). A total of 8.4% unobservable tail base and 37.9% unobservable snout locations were not visible pre-injection. Post-injection, 17.7% of tail base locations were unobservable compared to 46.4% of pig snouts. Due to the large number of unobservable data values in measuring the proximity from the observer’s index finger to the pig’s snout and tail base anatomical locations, it is not recommended for use as a practical on-farm pig behavioral welfare assessment measure.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".