MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400933882 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2024-0029

Simulation of loading and unloading through ramps of different configuration: effects on the ease of handling and physiological response of pigs of two slaughter weights

2024· article· en· W4400933882 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Aloma Zoratti, Jéssica Gonçalves Vero, Jansller Luiz Genova, Nicolas Devillers, Sabine Conte, Ana Maria Bridi, Edi Piasentier, L. Faucitano

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behaviour, heart rate (HR), and blood lactate concentration of 144 pigs, equally distributed into lighter (L, 122 kg on average) and heavier (H, 153 kg on average) groups, were assessed to study the effects of slaughter weight on pigs’ response to a simulated loading and unloading procedure using four ramp configurations, i.e., 0° (level ramp), 15° slope and 1.66 m length, 15° slope and 2.71 m length (15°LO), and 25° slope and 1.66 m. No interaction was found between ramp configuration and slaughter weight ( P > 0.10). The frequencies of pigs’ slips or falls ( P = 0.01) increased on sloped ramps compared to the floor level ( Padj < 0.05), and pigs jumped-off more from the 25° than the 15°LO ramp ( Padj = 0.05). Pigs negotiating the 25° slope ramp presented a higher concentration of blood lactate than those walking at the floor level ( P = 0.02). When compared to L pigs, H pigs were more reluctant to move ( P = 0.05), and presented higher increments of HR (ΔHR) during handling ( P = 0.03). In conclusion, heavier pigs were more difficult to handle, regardless of the ramp steepness, which alone reduced ease of handling and affected the physiological condition of pigs.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207