Pig Age and Approachability Behavior to a Human Observer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this experiment was to determine if nursery pig age affected how many pigs touched and orientated to a human, or were classified as not-orientated during a human-animal interaction test using live human observation and 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. Three age of pig treatments were compared; 6-weeks (n = 6 pens), 7-weeks (n = 10 pens) and 8-weeks (n = 11 pens). There were no differences for pig age when classified as touch, orientated and not orientated using the digital image (P > 0.05). Using the human method, more 7-week old pigs touched the human (P = 0.02). In conclusion, the digital image can be studied in more detail (on average each digital image was reviewed for 5 minutes) and hence, classifying pigs to these categories could be more accurate, resulting in no age differences for human approach in the pen between 6, 7 and 8 week old nursery pigs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".