ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023
Preferential associations in an unstable social network: applying social network analysis to a dynamic sow herd.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preferential associations are fitness-enhancing ties between individuals, documented in a range of taxa. Despite this, research into preferential associations remains underrepresented in commercial species, particularly pigs. This study investigates the development of preferential associations in a dynamic sow herd. Preferential associations were defined as approaching a resting sow and then sitting or lying with physical contact with the selected sow, separated by < 1 m from the head or directly next to her, with interaction tolerated for > 60 s. For individual identification, each sow was marked with colored dots, stripes, or both, corresponding to their ear-tag number. Preferential associations were measured over one production cycle of 21 days. Behavioral observations took place on 7 days of the study, with 3 h of behavior per day recorded during peak activity times (08:00-09:00, 15:00-16:00, 20:00-21:00 h). Behaviors were recorded using five cameras, each positioned within the barn to provide coverage of the functional areas. The network metrics applied included in-degree centrality (received ties), out-degree centrality (initiated ties), centralization (the extent to which an individual is central within the network), clustering coefficient (a measure of tie strength), and the E-I Index (a measure of assortment by trait: parity, familiarity, and sociality). Individuals were added and removed during the study, so the centrality metrics of missing sows were weighted. To describe the structure of the network, brokerage typologies were applied. Brokerage typologies include five positions, including coordinators, gatekeepers, representatives, consultants, and liaisons. The results revealed social discrimination in assortment by connectedness even when ties were not reciprocal, and the most connected sows were significantly more likely to be approached than less connected individuals. The most connected sows had significantly higher in-degree and out-degree centrality. With the application of brokerage typologies, the results showed a relationship between connectedness and brokering type, with the most connected sows predominantly engaging in coordinating behavior. The results suggest that the motivation for discrimination in the unstable preferential association network was not founded upon bidirectional interactions. These findings highlight the complexities involved when forming social preferences and present a platform for further exploring the motivations for preferential associations among intensively farmed pigs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.