Diurnal rhythms of group-housed layer pullets with free choices between light and dim environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chickens under appropriate light–dark programs can develop diurnal rhythms. However, actual needs of layer pullets for the light and dark environments are not fully understood. This study was to investigate the diurnal rhythms of pullets in the light (30 lx) and dim (<1 lx) environments. The preferences of pullets on the light and dim environments were examined. The testing system contained four identical compartments (0.96 m length × 1.20 m width × 2.00 m height for each). A light-emitting diode tube, a camera, and weighing sensors were installed in each compartment. Four groups of eight Chinese domestic layer pullets, Jingfen, were used at the weeks 15–18. Choices of environments and feeding behaviors were monitored by weighing sensors, and activity was measured by digital image processing. The results show that pullets spent on average 35.5 ± 2.2 min under the light and 24.5 ± 2.1 min under the dim in each hour. Human inspection can stimulate bird feeding and activity. Overall, pullets behaved more actively under the light than under the dim environment. Pullets stayed in the light and dim environments throughout each hour of a day, which may suggest that lighting environments with free choices in a pullet house might better serve for pullet preference.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".