Affective Implications of Human–Animal Relationship on Pig Welfare: Integrating Non-Linear Heart Rate Variability Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human–animal relationship is crucial for animal welfare. Gentle handling enhances pigs’ comfort while rough handling causes fear and stress. This study examined how different human–animal relationship qualities affect the behavior and heart rate variability (linear and non-linear parameters) of 36 nursery pigs. Over six weeks, pigs experienced positive (n = 12), minimal (n = 12), or negative (n = 12) human handling. Their responses to handlers were then assessed in an experimental arena with four phases: habituation, exposure to the handler standing and sitting, and forced interaction. Pigs subjected to negative handling exhibited increased fear-related behaviors, spending less time in contact with the handler. They also exhibited heightened stress responses, with greater LF/HF ratio and Lmean values compared with positively handled pigs. Conversely, gently handled pigs displayed affiliative behaviors, accepting more strokes, and higher parasympathetic activation, indicated by greater RMSSD/SDNN and SampEn values, suggesting a more positive affective state. Minimally handled pigs exhibited some behavioral similarities to gently handled pigs, although physiological data indicated that the interaction was likely more rewarding for the gently handled pigs. These results emphasize the impact of human–animal relationships on pig welfare and highlight the value of incorporating non-linear heart rate variability parameters in such evaluations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".