MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479887945 · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10843

A validation of technologies monitoring dairy cow feeding, ruminating, and lying behaviors

2016· article· en· W2479887945 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M.R. Borchers, Yu‐Mei Chang, I Ching Tsai, Barbara Wadsworth, J.M. Bewley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of KentuckyEmory University
KeywordsRuminatingRuminationMilkingMorningLyingAnimal scienceEveningPedometerAutomatic milkingDairy cattleMathematicsBiologyLactationMedicinePhysicsPhysical activityIce calvingPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate commercially available precision dairy technologies against direct visual observations of feeding, rumination, and lying behaviors. Primiparous (n=24) and multiparous (n=24) lactating Holstein dairy cattle (mean ± standard deviation; 223.4±117.8 d in milk, producing 29.2±8.2kg of milk/d) were fitted with 6 different triaxial accelerometer technologies evaluating cow behaviors at or before freshening. The AfiAct Pedometer Plus (Afimilk, Kibbutz Afikim, Israel) was used to monitor lying time. The CowManager SensOor (Agis, Harmelen, Netherlands) monitored rumination and feeding time. The HOBO Data Logger (HOBO Pendant G Acceleration Data Logger, Onset Computer Corp., Pocasset, MA) monitored lying time. The CowAlert IceQube (IceRobotics Ltd., Edinburgh, Scotland) monitored lying time. The Smartbow (Smartbow GmbH, Jutogasse, Austria) monitored rumination time. The Track A Cow (ENGS, Rosh Pina, Israel) monitored lying time and time spent around feeding areas for the calculation of feeding time. Over 8 d, 6 cows per day were visually observed for feeding, rumination, and lying behaviors for 2 h after morning and evening milking. The time of day was recorded when each behavior began and ended. These times were used to generate the length of time behaviors were visually observed. Pearson correlations (r; calculated using the CORR procedure of SAS Version 9.3, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC), and concordance correlations (CCC; calculated using the epiR package of R version 3.1.0, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) evaluated association between visual observations and technology-recorded behaviors. Visually recorded feeding behaviors were moderately correlated with the CowManager SensOor (r=0.88, CCC=0.82) and Track A Cow (r=0.93, CCC=0.79) monitors. Visually recorded rumination behaviors were strongly correlated with the Smartbow (r=0.97, CCC=0.96), and weakly correlated with the CowManager SensOor (r=0.69, CCC=0.59). Visually recorded lying behaviors were strongly correlated with the AfiAct Pedometer Plus (r >0.99, CCC >0.99), CowAlert IceQube (r >0.99, CCC >0.99), and Track A Cow (r >0.99, CCC >0.99). The HOBO Data Loggers were moderately correlated (r >0.83, CCC >0.81) with visual observations. Based on these results, the evaluated precision dairy monitoring technologies accurately monitored dairy cattle behavior.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations234
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207