MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108490652 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaa278.414

PSV-19 Preliminary exploration of caretaker and manager perspectives of on-farm euthanasia on swine operations

2020· article· en· W3108490652 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hailey Simpson, Lily Edwards-Callaway, Catie Cramer, Noa Román-Muñiz, Elaine N Calaba, Lorann Stallones, Sofia Thompson, Sari Ennis, Elizabeth Kim, Monique Pairis‐Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal welfareWelfareQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyMental healthNursingMedicinePsychiatryPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Employees on swine operations have the critical role of ensuring animal health and well-being, which sometimes involves performing euthanasia. This study aimed to understand caretaker and manager involvement and perspectives on performing euthanasia on swine farms. Individuals were recruited through online (newsletters and emails to companies) and in-person (e.g. Pig Welfare Symposium, MN) methods in the fall of 2019. The survey consisted of 61 questions on topics related to training, methods of euthanasia, perspectives about euthanasia and knowledge of available mental health resources. Thirty-nine individuals participated in the survey (18 caretakers, 21 managers). Half of respondents (50%, n = 20) indicated that they were involved with making euthanasia decisions. The vast majority of respondents “believe that euthanasia is a humane way to end animal suffering” (95%; n = 36) and that “the euthanasia process on-farm is necessary” (97%; n = 34). A quarter of individuals (25%, n = 9) “feel emotionally upset after euthanizing a pig” and 84% (n = 26) indicated it is “easier to euthanize a pig the more they do it.” Additionally, 92% (n = 35) of respondents agreed that they have “enough experience and knowledge to know when to euthanize a pig.” Most of survey respondents (n = 34) agreed that they “feel as though I can communicate with my supervisors if I feel uncomfortable performing euthanasia” and that their “supervisors aim to promote a safe and encouraging work environment” (n = 38). Despite this, a small number of respondents (n = 6) did not feel “as though my supervisors acknowledge concerns that they may have” and did not feel that their supervisors take “an interest in my professional development and/or job performance.” Overall, data suggest that caretakers and managers understand the importance of euthanasia regarding animal well-being and generally feel they can communicate their concerns.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207