MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405379813 · doi:10.1079/9781800625136.0017

Transport of Pigs

2024· book-chapter· en· W4405379813 on OpenAlexaff
Luigi Faucitano, Juliana Ribas, E. Lambooij

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transport stress is both an animal welfare issue, resulting in animal losses and fatigued animals at slaughter, and a meat quality issue, resulting in carcass depreciation and meat quality defects. Both issues may result in significant economic losses for the industry. The welfare of pigs during transport (by road and by air) depends on many interacting factors, such as the condition of the animal, ambient temperature and relative humidity, loading density and time in transit, among other factors. Death losses during road and air transport of pigs can vary from a low of 0.03% under good conditions to a high of 3% under overcrowding conditions. The results arising from road transportation studies run over the last years have shown that both short and long journeys may be stressful for pigs and that poor vehicle design reduces ease of loading/unloading and thermal comfort of pigs during transport, sometimes resulting in meat quality defects. These effects can be exacerbated by the use of stress-susceptible pigs and vulnerable animals, such as piglets and cull sows, and by insufficient space allowed for pigs to lie down, drink, thermoregulate and rest during transport. These factors can also account for animal losses during air transportation of breeding pigs, and significantly more research in this area is needed to improve the pre- and in-flight practices and conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCABI eBooksSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207