MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134667769 · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19463

Effects of positive reinforcement training for heifers on responses to a subcutaneous injection

2021· article· en· W3134667769 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Lomb, A. Mauger, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, Daniel M. Weary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDairy Farmers of ManitobaDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsHabituationReinforcementSubcutaneous injectionAnimal scienceMedicineRegimenPsychologyAnimal-assisted therapyAnesthesiaAudiologyAnimal welfareSurgeryInternal medicinePet therapyBiologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cattle are subjected to routine procedures that require restraint and close contact to humans, which are both potentially aversive to the animal. Positive reinforcement training techniques may affect how animals perceive and respond to these procedures. The objectives of the current study were to describe a positive reinforcement regimen used to train cattle to stand still for a sham injection, and to assess the effects of this training on the responses to an actual injection. Eight "agency" heifers were trained, over an average of 85 ± 4.6 sessions, with positive reinforcement (i.e., animals received a grain reinforcer for desired behaviors) to enter a headlock, and they were habituated with counterconditioning and desensitization to a sham injection (i.e., animals were gradually exposed to the sensation of the sham injection, paired with access to grain). The headlock remained open at all times to allow heifers to leave. Eight "habituation" heifers were exposed to the treatment area and headlock for an equal number of sessions and duration as agency heifers, and 7 "naïve" heifers were provided no exposure to the treatment area. Once agency heifers tolerated the sham injection, all animals received a 1-mL subcutaneous injection of 0.9% NaCl while in the head lock (habituation and naïve heifers were locked in but agency heifers were free to withdraw). Immediate responses to the injection, starting with tenting of the skin, were video recorded and summarized as a reactivity score, which included the number of steps, head tosses, and backing-up movements; we also recorded the latency to approach the treatment area and headlock for 3 d after the injection. Of the agency heifers, 5 remained standing for the actual injection, whereas 3 heifers moved out of the headlock for a brief period (1, 3, and 5 s, respectively). Habituation heifers had a higher reactivity score [17.5 (10.5-28); median (IQR)] than agency [6 (2-13.5)] and naïve heifers [6 (5-7)]. Averaged over the 3 d after injection, agency heifers showed lower latencies to come to the treatment area [8.7 (7.2-24.2) s] than did habituation [50.5 (28-60) s] and naïve [53.7 (18-60) s] heifers. Agency heifers voluntarily entered the headlock within 1.3 (1-1.5) s but, with one exception, none of the other heifers did so within the allowed 15 s. These results indicate that dairy heifers can be trained with positive reinforcement and counterconditioning to voluntarily accept a painful procedure, and that training can reduce avoidance behaviors during and after the procedure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207