MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123831229 · doi:10.1093/ps/79.5.705

Spatial distribution of cannibalism mortalities in commercial laying hens

2000· article· en· W2123831229 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathaniel L. Tablante, Jean‐Pierre Vaillancourt, S.W. Martin, M. M. Shoukri, Inma Estévez

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersPoultry Industry Council
KeywordsCannibalismCageFlockBiologyAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineZoologyEcologyMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of cannibalism cases in a flock of 19,776 Babcock White Leghorns was monitored from 21 to 54 wk of age. The hens were kept in a single-floor house consisting of four banks of two-deck stair-step cages. Each of the 4,944 cages held four hens at a density of 152 cm(2) (60 inches(2)) per hen. Each cage was assigned a number from 1 to 4,944, and each dead bird was tagged according to its cage of origin. Dead birds were collected daily, kept in a freezer, and necropsied weekly. Farm personnel routinely transferred a live hen from an end cage to a cage where a mortality had occurred. The cause of death, age, cage number, and cage location were recorded for each dead hen. Of the 1,173 hens that died during the study period, 253 (21.6%) died from egg peritonitis, 184 (15.7%) from hypocalcemia, 167 (14.1%) from cannibalism, 164 (14%) from neoplastic disease, and the rest from various other causes. Cannibalism cases were analyzed statistically for clustering. Cannibalism was defined as death from tissue trauma and hemorrhage inflicted by cage mates. A spatial analysis showed that cannibalism is not a random event but one that occurs in clusters. The incidence of cannibalism was also found to be significantly higher on the top rows of cages as compared with the bottom rows.

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 score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations32
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207