Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33062448›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Social influence on the effectiveness of virtual fencing in sheep.

Danila Marini, Tellisa Kearton, Jackie Ouzman, Rick Llewellyn, Sue Belson, Caroline Lee

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Danila MariniSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Tellisa KeartonSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Jackie OuzmanAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Rick LlewellynAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Sue BelsonAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
Caroline LeeSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early virtual fencing trials have effectively contained small groups of sheep within set areas of a paddock when all animals were wearing manual electronic collars. With sheep farming commonly involving large flocks, a potential cost-effective application of virtual fencing would involve applying equipment to only a proportion of the flock. In this study, we tested the ability of virtual fencing to control a small flock of sheep with differing proportions of the group exposed to the virtual fence (VF). Thirty-six Merino sheep were identified as leaders, middle or followers by moving them through a laneway. The sheep were then allocated to groups balanced for order of movement. The groups (

Indexed as

Sheep behaviourSheep managementSheep welfareVirtual fencing

Identifiers

PMID33062448
PMCPMC7532778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.