MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040602591 · doi:10.4141/a00-031

Causes of skin damage to pig carcasses

2001· article· en· W2040602591 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionIncidence (geometry)WelfareAnimal welfareBusinessLarge whiteBiologyToxicologyAnimal scienceInternational tradeEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damage to the surface of the carcass after dehairing is a serious commercial problem, since it decreases the grade and subsequently the value of the carcass. In many countries, the incidence of skin damage on the carcass has not been considered to be a problem with high priority, as it seems to be easily solved by just trimming off the skin. However, the presence of an haematoma in the underlying tissue and its negative influence on meat quality must be taken into account. Some European Union (EU) countries are aiming at reducing the incidence of blemished carcasses in order to safeguard the image of the national pork sector for both domestic and exporting markets. Major factors responsible for the incidence of skin damage on the carcass are fighting among mixed groups of pigs and poor handling during the preslaughter stages. Recognition of the economical impact of these two factors on the slaughter pigs may lead to more welfare-friendly handling systems and to reduction in the practice of preslaughter mixing of animals. Key words: Handling, skin damage, animal welfare, carcass and meat quality, pigs

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.273 · 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