MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146872163 · doi:10.3390/ani11040969

Impact of Duration of Farrowing Crate Closure on Physical Indicators of Sow Welfare and Piglet Mortality

2021· article· en· W3146872163 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Camila Ceballos, Karen Camille Rocha Góis, Thomas D. Parsons, Meghann K. Pierdon

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrateWeaningLamenessMedicineAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines effects of opening hinged farrowing crates 4 or 7 days post-farrowing. Sows (n = 696) allocated to 3 treatments: PC—crate closed, T4—crate opened day 4, and T7—crate opened day 7 were assessed for body condition score (BCS), lameness, shoulder lesions and teat lesions. Piglet mortality was higher in T4 (27.8%) compared to T7 (23.9%) and PC (25.9%) (p < 0.05) which did not differ with T7 (p > 0.05). No difference in risk of being laid on was found 1–3 days post-farrowing with all crates closed (p > 0.05). Day 4–6, piglets in T4, experienced higher risk of being laid on compared to PC (IRR = 2.5, p < 0.05), and T7 (IRR = 2.3, p < 0.05). Days 7–15 post-farrowing, risk of piglets dying from being laid on was higher in open crates, T4 and T7, versus PC (T4: IRR = 3.89, T7: IRR = 3.5, p < 0.05). We found higher risk for teat lesions in PC sows at weaning (p < 0.05). With crates open, risk of piglets being laid on increased between 7 days and weaning, but total piglet mortality did not differ and the sow’s risk for teat lesions decreased. Our results, therefore, support opening crates at day 7.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207