Predicting main behaviors of beef bulls from accelerometer data: A machine learning framework
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
• Five behaviors of beef bulls were predicted from low sampling rate accelerometers. • A tree-like hierarchical classifier is described to make predictions on two levels. • Models created from data sampled at 1 Hz are more accurate than 0.5 Hz. • Grazing, Resting, and Ruminating showed higher accuracy than Walking and Fighting. Traditional methods to monitor free-range cattle, such as breeding beef bulls, are time-consuming. However, most current remote monitoring technologies operate at high sampling rates, making their use on bulls impractical due to their high battery consumption. Therefore, this study aims to describe and evaluate a machine-learning framework to predict the behaviors of beef bulls from raw accelerometer data at low sampling rates. Collars with 3D-accelerometers were deployed on 33 bulls, recording accelerometer data at 0.5 Hz (22 bulls in 2020 and 2021) or 1.0 Hz (11 bulls in 2023). Videos of bulls in pens, synched with the accelerometer by time, were recorded and analyzed. The behaviors investigated were grazing (GR), resting (RE), ruminating (RU), walking (WA), and in 2023, fighting (FI). Primary labels of activity (AC), corresponding to GR, WA, and FI, and non-activity (NA), corresponding to RE and RU, were assigned. Two datasets were created from data sampled at 1.0 Hz and 0.5 Hz. Then, behavioral events with duration within the inferior 0.05 quantile of the distribution for each behavior were removed, integrated measures of motion were calculated, and segmentation into consecutive 20 s time-windows was performed. Afterward, 132 frequency and time-domain features were extracted, and bulls’ ages were added as a physical feature. Two bulls from each year and dataset were segregated to form independent test sets. A leave-one-animal-out cross-validation (LOAO) was applied to Extratree classifiers to select relevant features. The final classifier was built in a hierarchical structure using XGBoost classifiers to make predictions on two levels: (1) distinguishing between AC and NA, and (2) categorizing AC into GR, WA, FI, and NA into RE or RU. This model was evaluated using LOAO and test sets for each dataset, and precision and sensitivity were calculated for each behavior. Matthews Correlation (MCC) and Cohen's Kappa (CK) coefficients were calculated for the overall assessment of the models’ levels. Comparisons of metrics obtained on LOAO and test sets were performed using the Wilcoxon Sum Rank and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. The LOAO MCC for 1.0 Hz (1st level = 0.98 ± 0.01, 2nd level = 0.92 ± 0.02) was higher than 0.5 Hz (1st level = 0.83 ± 0.20, 2nd level = 0.71 ± 0.20). In 1.0 Hz, all behaviors presented mean precision and sensitivity above 0.7, except the sensitivity of FI (LOAO = 0.47 ± 0.06, test set = 0.63 ± 0.18). In 0.5 Hz, the exception was the sensitivity of WA (LOAO = 0.58 ± 0.28, test set = 0.68 ± 0.06) and the sensitivity of RU in the test set (0.54 ± 0.26). Therefore, the proposed framework can be used to predict the behaviors of beef bulls from accelerometers sampling at 0.5 Hz or 1.0 Hz, although better results are observed at 1.0 Hz. Caution should be exercised for predicting FI at 1.0 Hz and WA at 0.5 Hz.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».