Pig Welfare Assessment: Development of a Protocol and Its Use by Veterinary Undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new approach to teaching welfare assessment is described and has been used with two cohorts of first-year veterinary undergraduates (totaling 515 students). The welfare assessment protocol was devised and trialed using pigs as an exemplar, but its principles are applicable to other species. A robust learning scheme was created, comprising didactic teaching, interactive seminars, practical hands-on training, and computer-based learning. Practical training included a formative virtual assessment of clinical signs of health and welfare using Questionmark Perception, which improved the students' performance significantly. Validation studies are being carried out to establish if acceptable levels of inter-observer variability can be achieved by students conducting on-farm assessments of pig welfare during their extramural studies program. The resulting assessments of welfare will be analyzed in a cross-sectional epidemiological study to identify risk factors for good and poor welfare, and the results will be fed back to participating farmers. This new approach enables veterinary students to learn key transferable skills in the early stages of their education and provides a strong grounding in a holistic approach to animal welfare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".