MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163127226 · doi:10.1258/0023677053739701

Effect of accommodating sucking and nosing on the behaviour of artificially reared piglets

2005· article· en· W2163127226 on OpenAlexaff
Tina M. Widowski, Yu-Ren Yuan, Julian Gardner

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Animals · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNovartis Pharma
KeywordsUdderSnoutAnimal scienceWeaningBiologyMedicineVeterinary medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonatal piglets are often used in biomedical research applications that require artificial rearing. Social housing can be problematic because the piglets develop belly nosing, navel and ear sucking that can result in injury. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of using feeding devices that provide various opportunities for sucking and nosing behaviour on reducing piglet-directed behaviour of group-housed laboratory piglets. Fifteen piglets were used in each of four trials. The piglets nursed their dam for approximately 72 h to obtain passive immunity before transfer to a laboratory facility where they were allotted, five per group, to one of three stainless steel isolator units. Each unit featured a different style of feeding system for the delivery of milk replacer: a plastic trough (T), a nipple (N) mounted on a smooth plexiglass wall, or a nipple mounted on a pliant bag of sterile water (artificial udder [AU]). Each system had five feeding spaces so that all piglets fed simultaneously. Milk was provided at 6-h intervals, and behaviour was recorded on alternate days for 12 days post-weaning. Although trough-fed piglets began to eat much sooner than those piglets fed from nipples, time spent nosing, chewing or sucking on pen-mates and belly nosing were markedly higher in T piglets than in either N or AU, overall (mean: P<0.05) and over time (quadratic: P<0.05). Over time, N piglets developed a stereotypic snout rubbing on the wall behind the nipples, while AU piglets massaged and often fell asleep in contact with the udder from day 2 of the trial. Resting patterns were also affected. N and AU piglets settled down to rest more quickly (P<0.01) and spent significantly more time resting in the hour following feeding than T piglets (P<0.05). A feeding device that accommodates both sucking and massage can significantly reduce piglet-directed behaviour and may facilitate social housing of artificially reared piglets.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.337
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory AnimalsSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207