Technical note: Validation of a system for monitoring rumination in dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased rumination in dairy cattle has been associated with increased saliva production and improved rumen health. Most estimates of rumination are based on direct visual observations. Recently, an electronic system was developed that allows for automated monitoring of rumination in cattle. The objective was to validate the data generated by this electronic (Hi-Tag, SCR Engineers Ltd., Netanya, Israel) rumination monitoring system. Assessments of 2 independent observers were highly correlated (r = 0.99, n = 23), indicating that direct human observations were suitable as the reference method. Measures from the Hi-Tag electronic system were validated by comparing values with those from a human observer for fifty-one 2-h observation periods from 27 Holstein cows. Rumination times (35.1 +/- 3.2 min) from the electronic system were highly correlated with those from direct observation (r = 0.93, R(2) = 0.87, n = 51), indicating that the electronic system was an accurate tool for monitoring this behavior in dairy cows.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".