MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054130183 · doi:10.2527/jas.2012-6083

Effect of ramp configuration on easiness of handling, heart rate, and behavior of near-market weight pigs at unloading1

2013· article· en· W2054130183 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Goumon, L. Faucitano, Renée Bergeron, T.G. Crowe, M. L. Connor, H. W. Gonyou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité LavalUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of GuelphAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaGenome Prairie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceHeart rateBody weightMathematicsMaterials scienceChemistryBiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three experiments, each using 280 pigs, were conducted in a simulated compartment to test the effect of angle of entrance (AOE) to the ramp (90°, 60°, 30°, or 0°), ramp slope (0°, 16°, 21°, or 26°), and an initial 20-cm step associated with 16° or 21° ramp slopes on the ease of handling, heart rate (HR), and behavior of near market-weight pigs during unloading. Heart rate (pigs and handler), unloading time, interventions of the handler, and reactions of the pigs were monitored. The results of the first experiment show that using a 90° AOE had detrimental effects on ease of handling (P < 0.05), HR of the pig (P < 0.05), and behavior (P < 0.05). The 0° and 30° AOE appeared to improve the ease of unloading, whereas the 60° AOE had an intermediate effect. The 30° AOE appeared to be preferable, because pigs moved at this angle balked less frequently (P < 0.01) and required less manipulation (P < 0.05) than pigs moved with a 0° AOE. The results of the second experiment show that the use of a flat ramp led to the easiest unloading, as demonstrated by the lower number of balks (P < 0.001) when pigs were moved to the ramp and less frequent use of paddle (P = 0.001) or voice (P < 0.001) on the ramp, compared with the other treatments. However, the flat ramp did not differ from the 21° ramp in many of the variables reflecting ease of handling, which may be explained by the difference in configuration between the ramps. The results also show that the use of the steepest ramp slope had the most detrimental effect on balking and backing up behavior of pigs (P < 0.001), and handling (touches, slaps, and pushes; P < 0.05 for all) when moved to the ramp and on unloading time (P < 0.01). No differences in pig HR (P < 0.05) and ease of handling on the ramp (P < 0.05) were found between a 26° and 16° ramp slope, suggesting that the length of the ramp may be one of the factors that make unloading more difficult. The results of the last experiment show that an initial step made unloading physically more demanding for the handler (P < 0.001) and pigs on the ramp (P < 0.05) as demonstrated by their greater HR. The greater difficulty of handling (P < 0.01) and reluctance to move (P < 0.05) of pigs moved toward the 16° ramp with a step suggest that pigs perceived this ramp as more psychologically challenging. Making a few changes in terms of the design of the ramp could improve the efficiency of handling and reduce stress in 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.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207