MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3207788030 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab235.556

PSV-16 Validation of an algorithm to assess feedbunk replacement events in beef cattle using an electronic feeding system

2021· article· en· W3207788030 on OpenAlexaff
Keara O’Reilly, G. E. Carstens, Borbala Foris, Courtney L Daigle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmAgonistic behaviourStatisticsAnimal scienceMathematicsComputer scienceBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Visual observations of social behavior and dominance relationships in cattle have been used to examine associations with productivity and well-being. This method is time consuming limiting the number of animals that can be evaluated. The objective of this study was to validate an algorithm to quantify feedbunk replacement events using data from an electronic feeding system. Crossbred beef steers (n = 20) fed a grower diet were housed in 1 of 2 pens each equipped with 3 electronic feedbunks (GrowSafe Systems) and video recorders. A trained video observer recorded all feedbunk replacement events and other agonistic activities at the feedbunk over a 4-d period (24 h/d). The electronic feeding system recorded the start and end timestamps of bunk visit (BV) events for each animal. An algorithm was developed to determine BV events deemed to be replacement events, defined as a BV event when an actor animal displaced a reactor animal from the feedbunk and occupied the same feeder within a specified period of time (replacement criterion). We calculated the recall and precision corresponding to replacement criterions from 1 to 60 s, and the optimum replacement criterion was determined to be between 18 and 20 s. The recall, precision and F-score of the algorithm using this replacement criterion were high (on average > 0.75). Furthermore, a replacement competition index was computed as a proxy for competitive feedbunk behavior, calculated as the number of actor-initiated replacement events divided by the total number of replacement events for each steer. Using Spearmans rank correlation we found high correlations (r > 0.7; P < 0.05) between the electronic and observed indices. These preliminary results demonstrate the potential of the GrowSafe system to quantify feedbunk replacement events for confined beef cattle, providing opportunities to evaluate associations between competitive feedbunk behavior and economically relevant traits.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→