MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323494690 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2015-0109

An investigation of a novel behavioural test to assess pain in piglets following castration

2016· article· en· W2323494690 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kayla Bilsborrow, Yolande M. Seddon, Jennifer Brown, Cheryl Waldner, J. M. Stookey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsGenome PrairieUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCastrationMeloxicamMedicineSalineAnalgesicPain assessmentAnesthesiaAnimal scienceInternal medicinePain managementBiologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel behavioural test using a handling chute was evaluated over two trials as an objective method to assess pain in piglets following castration. Piglet (n = 98) navigation time (NT) through a handling chute was measured at specific time points up to 24 h post treatment. In trial 1, comparing the NT of castrates (C) and sham castrates (SC), C piglets had a longer NT than SC at 0 and 15 min post treatment (P < 0.05), with no differences thereafter. In trial 2, the effect of an analgesic to control postoperative pain on NT was examined, with castrated piglets given a half (CH) or full (CF) dose of meloxicam 1 h prior to treatment, compared with piglets castrated and given saline (CS) or sham castrated and given saline (SS). Post treatment, CS piglets had a longer NT than SS at 0 min (P < 0.005), and at 15 min, piglets CS had a longer NT than all groups (P < 0.001). No significant associations were found between piglet behaviour in the home pen and NT during the 60 min following treatment. These data demonstrate potential for the use of a handling chute to measure NT as a quick, standardized, method to assess piglet pain in response to castration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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