Effects of Enrichment Type, Presentation and Social Status on Enrichment Use and Behavior of Sows—Part 2: Free Access Stall Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuing with previous research by our group in an ESF system, four types of enrichment treatments were assessed in gestating sows housed in Free Access Stalls: (1) Constant: constant provision of wood on chain; (2) Rotate: rotation of rope, straw and wood; (3) Stimulus: rotation of enrichments with an acoustic cue; and (4) Control: no enrichment. Treatments had a 12 day-duration. Four groups (28 ± 2 sows) were studied from weeks 6 to 14 of gestation. Groups received all treatments in random order. Three dominant and 3 subordinates per pen were selected using a feed competition test. Digital photos were collected at 10 min intervals for 8 h on days 1, 8, 10 and 12 to record interactions with enrichment. Skin lesions were assessed on days 1 and 12, and salivary cortisol was assessed in weeks 6, 10 and 14 of gestation. More enrichment use was observed in Rotate and Stimulus treatments compared to Constant, and more sows contacted enrichment when straw was provided in the Rotate and Stimulus treatments. There was no difference in the amount of enrichment use by dominants and subordinates, no cortisol concentration elevation in subordinate sows nor any difference in lesion scores. In conclusion, social status had little impact and feeding system is important to reduce stress and aggression.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".