Novel use of an activity monitor to model jumping behaviors in cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop methods to identify and characterize activity monitor (AM) data signatures for jumps performed by cats. ANIMALS: 13 healthy, client-owned cats without evidence of osteoarthritis or degenerative joint disease. PROCEDURES: Each cat was fitted with the same AM, individually placed in an observation room, then simultaneously recorded by 3 video cameras during the observation period (5 to 8 hours). Each cat was encouraged to jump up (JU), jump down (JD), and jump across (JA) during the observation period. Output from the AM was manually annotated for jumping events, each of which was characterized by functional data analysis yielding relevant coefficients. The coefficients were then used in linear discriminant analysis to differentiate recorded jumps as JUs, JDs, or JAs. To assess the model's ability to distinguish among the 3 jump types, a leave-one-out cross-validation method was used, and the misclassification error rate of the overall categorization of the model was calculated. RESULTS: Of 731 jumping events, 29 were misclassified. Overall, the mean misclassification error rate per cat was 5.4% (range, 0% to 12.5%), conversely indicating a correct classification rate per cat of 94.6%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that the model was successful in correctly identifying JUs, JDs, and JAs in healthy cats. With advancements in AM technology and data processing, there is potential for the model to be applied in clinical settings as a means to obtain objective outcome measures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".