MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143527020 · doi:10.3382/ps.2006-00440

The Stress and Fear Levels of Microwave Toe-Treated Broiler Chickens Grown with Two Photoperiod Programs

2008· article· en· W2143527020 on OpenAlexafffund
B. Wang, Bruce Rathgeber, Tess Astatkie, Janice MacIsaac

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
FundersPoultry Industry Council
KeywordsphotoperiodismBroilerAnimal scienceHatcheryInternal medicineCreatine kinaseEndocrinologyBiologyChemistryMedicineFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study was conducted to investigate the influence of microwave toe treatment and an increasing photoperiod on stress and fear levels in broiler chickens. Upon delivery from the hatchery, the toe tips of 364 male and 364 female broilers were exposed to microwave energy to restrict claw growth, whereas the same numbers of birds retained intact toes. Birds from each sex and toe treatment were grown under 23 h of light or increasing photoperiods, with 4 replicates of each treatment combination. Elevated activity of plasma creatine kinase (CK) and increased heterophil to lymphocyte (H/L) ratios were employed as indicators of stress. Tonic immobility (TI) was conducted on d 10, 22, and 36 and used as an index of fear response. Males had lower plasma CK activity and H/L ratios (P < 0.05). Birds on 23 h of light had a higher activity of plasma CK (P < 0.05) but similar H/L ratios compared with birds on the increasing photoperiod. Microwave toe treatment did not affect the activity of plasma CK or H/L ratios. Photoperiod, microwave toe treatment, or sex did not affect the number of attempts required to induce TI. The increasing lighting program decreased the duration of TI on d 10 (P < 0.05), had no effect on d 22, and increased duration of TI on d 36 (P < 0.05). There was no microwave toe treatment or sex effect on the duration of TI at any ages tested.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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 studies0.0010.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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