MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393008723 · doi:10.1098/rsos.231075

Raising laying hens: housing complexity and genetic strain affect startle reflex amplitude and behavioural response to fear-inducing stimuli

2024· article· en· W4393008723 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana K. Rentsch, Alexandra Harlander, Lee Niel, Janice M. Siegford, Tina M. Widowski

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Society Open Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceEgg Farmers of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsCanadian Poultry Research Council
KeywordsAlertnessAffect (linguistics)PsychologyMoro reflexDevelopmental psychologyAcoustic Startle ReflexReflexStrain (injury)AudiologyBiologyNeuroscienceCommunicationMedicineAnatomyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

). We used a startle reflex test (weeks 4 and 14) to measure startle amplitude and autonomic response (i.e. comb temperature). A combination of novel arena (NA) and novel object (NO) tests was used (week 14) to assess NA exploration and alertness, latency to approach the centre and initial NO avoidance and investigation. Housing × strain affected startle amplitude (B-Conv, B-High < B-Low, B-Mid; B > W; no housing effect in W) but not autonomic response. Fear behaviour was affected by housing (NA exploration, investigation: Conv < Low, Mid, High; NO avoidance: Conv, High < Low, Mid), strain (NA alertness: B > W, NO avoidance: W > B) and their interaction (NA centre approach: B-Conv < all other groups). We present evidence for strain-specific fear responses depending on early experience.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoyal Society Open ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207