Effect of continuous access to feeding stalls during mixing on behavior, welfare, and performance of group-housed gestating sows in different social ranks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate a strategy of using feeding stalls to protect low-ranking sows in group-housing systems. Sows (n = 150, parity 1–9) were mixed at weaning in pens of 15 sows. Control pens allowed sows to access feeding stalls for 1 h of feeding daily during the initial 2 d after mixing. Treatment pens allowed sows to access feeding stalls continuously. Social rank was determined based on outcomes of aggressive interactions among sows after mixing. Low-ranking sows used the feeding stalls more frequently (P < 0.01) than high-ranking sows during the initial 6 h after mixing. Continuous stall access reduced frequency of aggressive interactions (P = 0.05) and, consequently, reduced skin lesions (P = 0.05) of sows in the pen. Neither continuous access to stalls nor social rank affected performance of sows. These results suggest that low-ranking sows used feeding stalls as hiding spaces to escape from aggressive interactions during mixing, which reduced skin lesions caused by aggression and improved the welfare of sows in the group-housing system studied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".