MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1854514473 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138125

Movement Behaviour of Traditionally Managed Cattle in the Eastern Province of Zambia Captured Using Two-Dimensional Motion Sensors

2015· article· en· W1854514473 on OpenAlexaff
Caesar H. Lubaba, Arata Hidano, Susan C. Welburn, Crawford W. Revie, Mark C. Eisler

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersBeit Trust
KeywordsMorningBreedMotion sensorsVeterinary medicineMovement (music)GeographyMotion (physics)Animal healthMedicineAnimal scienceEnvironmental healthBiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-dimensional motion sensors use electronic accelerometers to record the lying, standing and walking activity of cattle. Movement behaviour data collected automatically using these sensors over prolonged periods of time could be of use to stakeholders making management and disease control decisions in rural sub-Saharan Africa leading to potential improvements in animal health and production. Motion sensors were used in this study with the aim of monitoring and quantifying the movement behaviour of traditionally managed Angoni cattle in Petauke District in the Eastern Province of Zambia. This study was designed to assess whether motion sensors were suitable for use on traditionally managed cattle in two veterinary camps in Petauke District in the Eastern Province of Zambia. In each veterinary camp, twenty cattle were selected for study. Each animal had a motion sensor placed on its hind leg to continuously measure and record its movement behaviour over a two week period. Analysing the sensor data using principal components analysis (PCA) revealed that the majority of variability in behaviour among studied cattle could be attributed to their behaviour at night and in the morning. The behaviour at night was markedly different between veterinary camps; while differences in the morning appeared to reflect varying behaviour across all animals. The study results validate the use of such motion sensors in the chosen setting and highlight the importance of appropriate data summarisation techniques to adequately describe and compare animal movement behaviours if association to other factors, such as location, breed or health status are to be assessed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207