quoll

Deed

6 results · hybrid · 1.315308636s

Filters
Consultancy Deed 100%
file · #67

…14.4 Entire Deed This Deed contains the entire understanding between the parties concerning the subject matter of this Deed and supersedes all prior communications between the parties. Each party acknowledges that…

Sutureless Technique for Surgical Castration in Adult Boars: A Feasibility Study 1%
Stella Maria Teresa Romeo; Sarah Morrone; Toufic Akl; Antonio Scanu; Nicolò Columbano · file · #77

tor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Sutureless Technique for Surgical Castration in Adult Boars: A Feasibility Study 1%
Stella Maria Teresa Romeo; Sarah Morrone; Toufic Akl; Antonio Scanu; Nicolò Columbano · file · #10

tor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Proposing a short version of the Unesp-Botucatu pig acute pain scale using a novel application of machine learning technique 1%
Giovana Mancilla Pivato; Gustavo Venâncio da Silva; Beatriz Granetti Peres; Stelio Pacca Loureiro Luna; Monique Danielle Pairis-Garcia; Pedro Henrique Esteves Trindade · file · #36

eting interests The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at ​h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​d​oi​ ​.​o​r​g​/​1​ 0​.​10​ ​3​8​/​s​4​1​5​9​8-​ ​0​2​5​-​9​1​5​5​1​-​6​​​.​ ​​ Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.H.E.T. Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit ​h​t​t​p​:/​ ​/​c​r​e​a​t​i​v​ec​ ​o​m​m​o​ n​s​.​o​rg​ ​/​l​i​c​e​n​s​e​s/​

Proposing a short version of the Unesp-Botucatu pig acute pain scale using a novel application of machine learning technique 1%
Giovana Mancilla Pivato; Gustavo Venâncio da Silva; Beatriz Granetti Peres; Stelio Pacca Loureiro Luna; Monique Danielle Pairis-Garcia; Pedro Henrique Esteves Trindade · file · #103

eting interests The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at ​h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​d​oi​ ​.​o​r​g​/​1​ 0​.​10​ ​3​8​/​s​4​1​5​9​8-​ ​0​2​5​-​9​1​5​5​1​-​6​​​.​ ​​ Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.H.E.T. Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit ​h​t​t​p​:/​ ​/​c​r​e​a​t​i​v​ec​ ​o​m​m​o​ n​s​.​o​rg​ ​/​l​i​c​e​n​s​e​s/​

Animals Assured — Claude Skill Definitions (v1.0) 1%
file · #1

* — first author surname and year, e.g. "Ranheim 2005" - **Full Citation** — full APA citation including DOI - **Study Type** — one of: RCT / Research / Review / Expert / Commercial - **Evidence Class** — 1–5 (see rules below) - **Evidence Class Rationale** — your written reasoning, 2–3 sentences, citing the specific criteria that apply - **L2 Category Tags** — one or more of: NOCICEPTIVE, INFLAMMATORY, NEUROPATHIC, VISCERAL, NUTRITIONAL_DEPRIVATION, THERMAL_STRESS, PHYSICAL_DISCOMFORT, IMMUNE_MALAISE, FEAR_ACUTE, STRESS_CHRONIC, FRUSTRATION_BEHAVIOURAL, SOCIAL_DISTRESS - **L4 Domain Tags** — from the AA_Taxonomy_Reference, user-provided if available - **Parameter(s) Supported** — which PT phase parameters or intervention parameters this paper informs - **Value/Range** — the specific value or range this paper supports, with units - **Notes/Gaps** — what the paper does not address; known limitations; conflicts of interest; where senior review is needed ## Evidence Class rules — assign rigorously | Class | Score | Assign when | |---|---|---| | Controlled Trial / RCT | 5 | Randomised controlled trial, systematic review, or meta-analysis with pooled quantitative estimates | | Research Strong | 4 | 3 or more independent peer-reviewed studies with consistent findings on the same parameter — **this is a corpus-level rating, not a single-paper rating.** Use only when drafting for a parameter where the full corpus supports it. | | Commercial Trial | 3 | Manufacturer-sponsored or field trial, peer-reviewed preferred. Single well-designed study. **Hard cap for any manufacturer-sponsored paper, regardless of design quality.** | | Research Weak | 2 | 1–2 studies, small n (<10 per group), indirect evidence, or inconsistent findings across papers | |