Distance of Nursery Pig Snout and Tails from a Human Observer during an Approachability Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this experiment was to determine the distance of nursery pigs snout and tails from a human observer when classified as touched, orientated to the human or s not-orientated during a human-animal interaction test using a digital image collection methodology. A complete randomized experimental design was utilized in this study where the pen of pigs was the experimental unit. Two methods, a human observer and a digital image, were assigned within rooms to all pens. Two treatments were compared for snout and tail distance (n = 27). There was a difference in proximity between the observer’s index finger and the snout and tail base anatomical locations when pigs were classified in the “touch”, “look”, and “not” categories. The snouts and tail bases for pigs classified in the “touch” category were closest (P < 0.0001) to the observer’s index finger, followed by “look” and “not”, respectively. When counting the number of snout and tail base locations, the author was unable to measure 15% of tail bases (1.5 pigs out of 10 pigs/pen) and 33% (3.3 pigs out of 10 pigs/pen) of snouts in the digital image. The majority of unobserved anatomical locations were pigs classified in the “not” category for snouts (53%) compared to pigs classified in the “touch” (38.9%) and “look” (4.8%) categories, respectively. Tail base anatomical locations across all categories for unobserved data locations were similar for all pigs (“touch” 15.1, “look” 14.3, and “not” 12.9%). In conclusion, snouts were closer to the observer in the following order: Touch > Oriented > Not Oriented. This might seem like an intuitive result, that pigs faced the human. However, if pigs were fearful, they could be facing away from the observer, resulting in the tail base being the closest anatomical location across behavioral categories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".