MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regulation of Contact with Offspring by Domestic Sows: Temporal Patterns and Individual Variation

2000· article· en· W1982942491 on OpenAlexaff
Edmond A. Pajor, Donald L. Kramer, David Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLitterLactationAnimal scienceOffspringBiologyParity (physics)DemographyPregnancyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a sow‐controlled housing system to examine temporal and individual variation in the tendency of sows to associate with young. During a 5‐week lactation, 22 sows and litters were housed in a pen where the sow could freely leave and re‐enter the piglets’ area by stepping over a barrier that the piglets could not cross. Despite this option, the sows remained with the piglets almost constantly during the 1st day after birth. Nineteen sows (‘leavers’) changed to spending most of their time away from the litter at some point in the lactation. The change was rapid, often within a single week, and occurred in week 2, 3, 4 or 5, depending on the individual. The time of rapid increase in time away was not related to characteristics of the sow or litter, including parity, litter size and sex ratio. Three sows (‘stayers’) did not increase their time away as lactation advanced, and rarely spent more than 15% of their day in the piglet‐free area. Nearly all sows showed a clear preference to defecate in the piglet‐free area. This study shows 1. that sows voluntarily reduce their contact with the young; 2. that the timing of this reduction varies greatly amongst sows for reasons that may relate to differences in maternal motivation, and 3. that sows do not abandon the litter if the young cannot follow. The clear preference that most sows developed for the piglet‐free area reinforces physiological evidence that constant confinement with older litters is aversive for many sows.

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)0.000
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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations40
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207