Effects of clipping of flight feathers on resource use in Gallus gallus domesticus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground-dwelling species of birds, such as domestic chickens ( Gallus gallus domesticus ), experience difficulties sustaining flight due to high wing loading. This limited flight ability may be exacerbated by loss of flight feathers that is prevalent among egg-laying chickens. Despite this, chickens housed in aviary style systems need to use flight to access essential resources stacked in vertical tiers. To understand the impact of flight feather loss on chickens' ability to access elevated resources, we clipped primary and secondary flight feathers for two hen strains (brown-feathered and white-feathered, n = 120), and recorded the time hens spent at elevated resources (feeders, nest-boxes). Results showed that flight feather clipping significantly reduced the percentage of time that hens spent at elevated resources compared to ground resources. When clipping both primary and secondary flight feathers, all hens exhibited greater than or equal to 38% reduction in time spent at elevated resources. When clipping only primary flight feathers, brown-feathered hens saw a greater than 50% reduction in time spent at elevated nest-boxes. Additionally, brown-feathered hens scarcely used the elevated feeder regardless of treatment. Clipping of flight feathers altered the amount of time hens spent at elevated resources, highlighting that distribution and accessibility of resources is an important consideration in commercial housing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".