MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unflappable: Wing flapping of aviary-housed laying hens following spatial restriction

2025· article· en· W4414788554 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Animal Behaviour Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureMichigan Alliance for Animal AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMorningFlappingEnclosureLitterLayingPet therapyDuskAnimal-assisted therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commercial housing systems are becoming more complex to accommodate positive hen behaviors, including wing flapping (WF). Hens need substantial three-dimensional space to flap their wings, and system configurations can influence this behavior. This study examined the timing and frequency of WF among 4 laying hen strains (2 white-feathered and 2 brown-feathered; 576 hens/strain) housed in a commercial-style multi-tiered aviary. Hens were separated by strain into 16 tiered aviary units within 4 rooms (4 units/room, 1 unit/strain/room). Each unit contained a litter-covered floor and a 3-tiered enclosure containing feed, water, perches, and nests. Doors on the bottom tier opened and closed, determining when hens could access litter. Hens were confined within tiered enclosures from 01:00–11:35 daily, providing ∼8.5 h of litter access before lights turned off at 20:00. Ceiling-mounted cameras in each unit captured hens’ behavior on litter. Observers watched 1 day of video footage when hens were 28 weeks old and recorded every stationary WF event. For analysis, time of day (11:35–20:00) was broken into six 85-min blocks of time (A, B, C, D, E, F). A generalized linear mixed model was used to compare counts of WF among the 4 strains. Main effects were the strain and time; random effects were room and unit location within the room. A Spearman rank correlation test was applied to evaluate the relationship between WF counts and density of the birds on the litter. Overall, brown-feathered hens flapped their wings more than white-feathered hens (P < 0.05). More WF events were counted in the morning (time A) compared to evening (time F) (P < 0.05), suggesting hens’ daily confinement within wire enclosures may have increased their motivation to wing flap once they had room to do so. Overall, WF instances were negatively correlated with birds’ density on the litter (r = -0.205; P < 0.001), and a similar pattern was observed within each strain and in F. No correlation was found between WF counts and hens’ density on the litter when hens first gained access to the litter each day (time A). In conclusion, white and brown strains showed different amounts of WF, and time of day and number of hens on the litter influenced how much WF occurred. However, further research is needed to address the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors such as age, motivation, litter stocking density, standard management practices like feed distribution, and daily activity patterns. • White laying hens present different wing flapping patterns from brown ones. • Strains of the same feather color also differ in wing flapping pattern. • Wing flapping behavior is influenced by time of day. • Environmental and management factors can affect wing flapping performance.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.228 · 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