MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132295338 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab022

ASAS-NANP SYMPOSIUM: Applications of machine learning for livestock body weight prediction from digital images

2021· review· en· W3132295338 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhuoyi Wang, Saeed Shadpour, Esther T. Chan, Vanessa Rotondo, Katharine M Wood, Dan Tulpan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEffects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsLivestockFeedlotArtificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer scienceBody weightStatisticsAnimal scienceMathematicsMedicineBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring, recording, and predicting livestock body weight (BW) allows for timely intervention in diets and health, greater efficiency in genetic selection, and identification of optimal times to market animals because animals that have already reached the point of slaughter represent a burden for the feedlot. There are currently two main approaches (direct and indirect) to measure the BW in livestock. Direct approaches include partial-weight or full-weight industrial scales placed in designated locations on large farms that measure passively or dynamically the weight of livestock. While these devices are very accurate, their acquisition, intended purpose and operation size, repeated calibration and maintenance costs associated with their placement in high-temperature variability, and corrosive environments are significant and beyond the affordability and sustainability limits of small and medium size farms and even of commercial operators. As a more affordable alternative to direct weighing approaches, indirect approaches have been developed based on observed or inferred relationships between biometric and morphometric measurements of livestock and their BW. Initial indirect approaches involved manual measurements of animals using measuring tapes and tubes and the use of regression equations able to correlate such measurements with BW. While such approaches have good BW prediction accuracies, they are time consuming, require trained and skilled farm laborers, and can be stressful for both animals and handlers especially when repeated daily. With the concomitant advancement of contactless electro-optical sensors (e.g., 2D, 3D, infrared cameras), computer vision (CV) technologies, and artificial intelligence fields such as machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), 2D and 3D images have started to be used as biometric and morphometric proxies for BW estimations. This manuscript provides a review of CV-based and ML/DL-based BW prediction methods and discusses their strengths, weaknesses, and industry applicability potential.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations86
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicEffects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockFrench-language works237,207