CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production case study

Tawse, J.·2010·Bioscience Horizons
DOI 10.1093/biohorizons/hzq020
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/biohorizons/hzq020

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Scatterplot showing a significantly positive correlation between PLI and TLS ( n ¼ 173).
Figure 1 Scatterplot showing a significantly positive correlation between PLI and TLS ( n ¼ 173).CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 2 Bar chart with standard error bars showing a significant difference in the mean TLS in AB / ABW ( n ¼ 56) as compared with N / ND ( n ¼ 65) and control students ( n ¼ 52), but not between N / ND students and control students.
Figure 2 Bar chart with standard error bars showing a significant difference in the mean TLS in AB / ABW ( n ¼ 56) as compared with N / ND ( n ¼ 65) and control students ( n ¼ 52), but not between N / ND students and control students.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. 2003, ANIM WELFARE, 12, 445, 10.1017/S096272860002604X · DOI
  2. 2003, ANIM WELFARE, 12, 433, 10.1017/S0962728600026038 · DOI
  3. 2003, ANIM WELFARE, 12, 469, 10.1017/S0962728600026063 · DOI
  4. 1998, FOOD POL, 23, 305, 10.1016/S0306-9192(98)00036-0 · DOI
  5. 1999, EUROP REV AGR ECON, 26, 409, 10.1093/erae/26.3.409 · DOI
  6. 2002, BR FOOD J, 104, 287, 10.1108/00070700210425723 · DOI
  7. 1996, ANIM WELFARE, 5, 3, 10.1017/S0962728600018285 · DOI
  8. 1997, FOOD POL, 22, 281, 10.1016/S0306-9192(97)00019-5 · DOI
  9. 1998, ANIM WELFARE, 7, 1, 10.1017/S0962728600020212 · DOI
  10. 1992, ANIM WELFARE, 1, 257, 10.7120/09627286.1.3.257 · DOI
  11. 1996, ANIM WELFARE, 5, 225, 10.1017/S0962728600018819 · DOI
  12. 2003, J AGR ENVIRON ETHICS, 16, 163, 10.1023/A:1022994131594 · DOI
  13. 2007, INT J SOCIOLOGY FOOD AGR, 15, 59, 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb00919.x · DOI
  14. 2000, AGBIOFORUM, 3, 107
  15. Webster, 2001, Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997), 161, 229, 10.1053/tvjl.2000.0563 · DOI
  16. 2004, INT J CONS STUD, 28, 168, 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00357.x · DOI
  17. 2001, REV SCI TECH OIE (OFF INT EPIZOOT), 20, 584, 10.20506/rst.20.2.1299 · DOI
  18. 2005, EUROCHOICES, 4, 36
  19. 1995, J AGR ECON, 46, 46, 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1995.tb00751.x · DOI
  20. 1997, 5, 169, 10.1163/156853097X00060 · DOI
  21. 2005, J INDIV DIFFER, 26, 107, 10.1027/1614-0001.26.3.107 · DOI
  22. 2007, BR FOOD J, 109, 919, 10.1108/00070700710835723 · DOI
  23. 2002, J AGR ENVIRON ETHICS, 15, 221, 10.1023/A:1015052816477 · DOI
  24. 1995, 3, 139, 10.1163/156853095X00125 · DOI
  25. 2003, 11, 375, 10.1163/156853003322796091 · DOI
  26. 2000, LIVEST PROD SCI, 65, 71, 10.1016/S0301-6226(99)00179-7 · DOI
  27. 2002, 60, 219, 10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00124-3 · DOI
  28. 2002, 23, 501, 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00098-3 · DOI
  29. 1993, 20, 229, 10.1006/appe.1993.1025 · DOI
  30. 2004, ANIM WELFARE, 13, 145s, 10.1017/S0962728600014500 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 2003, 82, 189, 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00057-1 · DOI
  32. 2003, 81, 185, 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 1999, P NUTR SOC, 58, 363, 10.1017/S0029665199000488 · DOI
  34. 2005, BR FOOD J, 107, 572, 10.1108/00070700510610986 · DOI
  35. 2000, J AGR ENVIRON ETHICS, 12, 141, 10.1023/A:1009538613588 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tawse, J.
Venue
Bioscience Horizons
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2010-05-18
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
156-165
ISSN
1754-7431
DOI
10.1093/biohorizons/hzq020
Cited by
32
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review