MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403672701 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2024-0053

Effects of pre-farrow feeding time on the farrowing time and duration in sows and litter outcomes

2024· article· en· W4403672701 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Livingstone Agbee Kpogo, Josiane C Panisson, H. L. Frobose, Daniel A Columbus

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsGenome PrairieUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGovernment of Saskatchewan
KeywordsDuration (music)Animal scienceLitterBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of time of feeding pre-farrow on farrowing time and duration. Two hundred and ninety-eight mixed parity sows were assigned to morning (0700 h) or evening (1900 h) feeding upon entry into the farrowing room until farrowing. More sows from the morning-fed group farrowed between 0700 and 1500 h than the evening-fed group (51.43 vs. 21.95%, P < 0.001). There were no differences ( P > 0.10) in farrowing duration. Number of piglets born alive, stillborn, and mummies did not differ ( P > 0.10) among treatments. Evening-fed sows had an increased number of pigs weaned, resulting from reduced preweaning mortality compared to the morning-fed sows ( P < 0.05). Morning feeding may be beneficial for maximizing the number of farrowing events that start during working hours and evening feeding may improve litter outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→