MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“Dropping” in male horses during training: Part 2. Video observations

2023· article· en· W4322627152 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Animal Behaviour Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorningPenisMedicineSession (web analytics)EveningTraining (meteorology)HorsePsychologyAudiologySurgeryBiologyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dropping (penile tumescence) in male horses has been related to the provision of food rewards but it is unclear why horses display this behaviour. The objective of this observational study was to characterize dropping in relation to other behavioural indicators. Trainers submitted videos of their training session with their horse (n = 24). Frequency of behaviours (oral, head position, tail swish), rewards (treats) and duration of penile characteristics (partial or full drop, flaccid or erect) were noted for multiple 2 min segments of the training session. Chi-squared analyses compared penile characteristics to rewards. A mixed model analyzed the effects of horse age and training segment on behaviours and penile characteristics. Dropping occurred 69 % of the time with either a flaccid or erect penis. In the first 2 min horses spent less time with a fully dropped and erect penis than later in the training session (p < .02). Horses 11–15 yrs were fully dropped (82 % of the time) and erect (65 % of the time) longer than older and younger horses (p < .0001). Horses spent less time fully dropped (15 %) when trainers did not use treats compared to when they did (42 %; p < .03). The number of dropping bouts did not differ regardless of whether treats were provided or not (p = .3672). Neither the use of touch (p = .6861) nor the use of the clicker (p = .3795) were related to dropping during training sessions. The horses exhibited shorter durations of being fully dropped (p = .0016) and fully erect (p = .0253) during afternoon training sessions compared to morning and evening training sessions. No stress-related behaviours (head positioning, tail swishing, lip licking) were related to dropping (p > .05) however lip licking did occur more frequently during the last two minutes of the session (p = .0003). From these observations it can be suggested that dropping is not a sign of stress but may relate to the affective state of the horse.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.276
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.125 · 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