MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diferenças nos comportamentos individuais quanto à preferência de uso de locais de matrizes pesadas em função do ambiente térmico

2006· article· pt· W594508311 on OpenAlexaff
Danilo Florentino Pereira, Fábio Penna Firme Curto, Irenilza de Alencar Nääs

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsFleming College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhysicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O estudo do comportamento tem se mostrado eficiente na identificação do bem-estar de aves alojadas. As identificações de preferências do grupo quanto o ambiente construtivo e o ambiente térmico vem sendo estudado em diversos países. Todavia, a habilidade dos homeotermos de se aclimatarem em ambientes inóspitos, resulta em necessidades ambientais diferentes para cada indivíduo, culminando em uma heterogeneidade no lote e inevitáveis perdas na produção. Para a diminuição dessas perdas, é necessário que se conheça as necessidades de cada indivíduo alojado para que grupos com necessidades semelhantes sejam formados. Este trabalho teve como objetivo demonstrar a viabilidade da utilização da telemetria e identificação eletrônica para o monitoramento individual de matrizes pesadas e identificar as diferenças comportamentais nas aves alojadas, em modelos de escala reduzida e distorcida. Os resultados demonstraram que a telemetria e a identificação eletrônica foram eficientes na identificação do bem-estar das matrizes pesadas e, através da análise observacional de gráficos de distribuição de freqüências, foi possível identificar os indivíduos que melhor se adaptaram ao ambiente térmico do alojamento.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.363
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207