Prandial Correlations and Structure of the Ingestive Behavior of Pigs in Precision Feeding Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feeding behavior of growing-finishing pigs was analyzed to study prandial correlations and the probability of starting a new feeding event. The data were collected in real-time based on 157,632 visits by a group of 70 growing-finishing pigs (from 30.4 to 115.5 kg body weight, BW) to automatic feeders. The data were collected over 84 days, during which period the pigs were kept in conventional (by phase and by group) or precision (with daily and individual adjustments) feeding programs. A criterion to delimit each meal was then defined based on the probability of an animal starting a new feeding event within the next minute since the last visit. Prandial correlations were established between meal size and interval before meal (pre-prandial) or interval after meal (post-prandial) using Pearson correlation analysis. Post-prandial correlations (which can be interpreted as hunger-regulating mechanisms) were slightly stronger than pre-prandial correlations (which can be interpreted as satiety regulation mechanisms). Both correlations decreased as the animals' age increased but were little influenced by the feeding programs. The information generated in this study allows a better understanding of pigs' feeding behavior regulation mechanisms and could be used in the future to improve precision feeding programs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".