MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403294822 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310537

Behavioral responses to artificial insemination and the effect of positive reinforcement training

2024· article· en· W4403294822 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Heinsius, M.A.G. von Keyserlingk, Daniel M. Weary

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsArtificial inseminationInseminationReinforcementAnimal scienceMedicineBiologyPsychologyPregnancyAndrologySpermSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dairy cattle experience a variety of stressors associated with routine farm practices, including injections, pen movements, regrouping, and artificial insemination. The primary objective of this study was to assess ear position (categorized according to 5 positions) and body movement responses of heifers during their first experience of artificial insemination, in comparison with responses during baseline observations before and after this procedure. A secondary objective was to test whether heifers exposed to positive reinforcement training (PRT) responded differently to this procedure. We tested 12 heifers (13 ± 0.7 mo. old); 7 were trained using PRT (as part of another study) and 5 had no experience with PRT. Ear axial and ear forward positions were more frequent during observations before and after artificial insemination relative to during artificial insemination (4.57 ± 0.82 vs. 0.31 ± 0.82 times/period, and 3.45 ± 0.51 vs. 0.50 ± 0.51 times/period, respectively). Backward pinned ear position was observed less frequently before and after versus during artificial insemination (0.12 ± 0.76 vs. 3.76 ± 0.76 times/period). We found no effect of period relative to artificial insemination on any of the 4 body movements assessed (leaning forward, backward, and steps taken with front legs and back legs).We found an effect of PRT on forward ear position (1.00 ± 0.51 times/PRT group vs. 2.95 ± 0.60 times/control group), and found that control heifers leaned forward and took more steps with their front legs than did PRT heifers (0.93 ± 0.57 times/PRT group vs. 3.55 ± 0.67 times/control group and 1.29 ± 0.68 times/PRT group vs. 3.85 ± 0.81 times/control group). We conclude that heifers experiencing artificial insemination for the first time express distinct ear positions that are consistent with responses to a negative emotional state. Further work is required to validate these responses and to determine the extent that they can be used to assess affective responses to this and other procedures.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.357
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207