Using Stakeholder Focus Groups to Refine the Care of Pigs Used in Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research organizations should be proactive in regularly evaluating and refining their animal care and use programs in order to advance animal welfare and minimize distress. Pigs are often used in research, but few empirical studies have examined optimal husbandry and research use practices for pigs in a research environment. We developed the Pig Welfare Working Group (PWWG) to address the need for more formal guidelines on the management and use of pigs in research. The PWWG was a stakeholder focus group whose goal was to identify challenges and opportunities relevant to improving animal welfare through collaboration, knowledge sharing, and inclusive decision-making. Through consensus building, the PWWG developed 12 recommendations for behavioral management, housing, research procedures, transportation, and rehoming programs. The recommendations were rolled out across the contract research organization, business units, sites, and countries. Follow up will be conducted regularly to assess welfare, monitor progress toward implementing the recommendations, and recognize and reward participants making changes at their site.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".