MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320481115 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2023.102581

Perception of laying hen farmers, poultry veterinarians, and poultry experts regarding sensor-based continuous monitoring of laying hen health and welfare

2023· article· en· W4320481115 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lara A. van Veen, Anna C.M. van den Oever, B. Kemp, H. van den Brand

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareAnimal welfareFlockLayingBusinessStatus quoScale (ratio)ProductivityEnvironmental resource managementAgricultural scienceMarketingEngineeringVeterinary medicineMedicineGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyEconomic growthEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Daily farm management practices play an essential role in determining and steering health, welfare and productivity of laying hen flocks. Optimal management requires expertise of farmers and coworkers, especially when hens are kept in complex, large-scale aviary systems. Relatively little sensor-based support is available to farmers, even though numerous research groups are working on developing technologies to continuously detect deviations in layer health and welfare. A survey with laying hen farmers, poultry veterinarians and poultry experts from Western Europe and Canada was conducted to identify and prioritize indicators of optimal and suboptimal laying hen health and welfare in commercial farms. The status-quo of sensor technology and the advantages, wishes, and concerns regarding sensors were additionally assessed to contribute to the future development of a predictive monitoring tool that continuously monitors laying hen health and welfare. A total of 45 stakeholders were interviewed, of which 41 filled in an online questionnaire. Although the prioritization of indicators differed between stakeholders, the majority identified the use of feed and water intake, egg production and quality, sound, activity, and movement of hens as important indicators to assess health and welfare. Currently collected (sensor) data were not used to their full potential, and stakeholders missed the integration and storage of data into one monitoring system with easy visualization tools. Most interest was observed in the use of cameras and microphones to detect deviations in health and welfare at an early stage, to reduce subjectivity of the assessment and to gain more knowledge on layer behavior. It can be concluded that these results could steer research efforts towards the development of continuous monitoring techniques, and enhance their adaptability and acceptability by stakeholders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207