Machine learning algorithms can predict tail biting outbreaks in pigs using feeding behaviour records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tail biting is a damaging behaviour that impacts the welfare and health of pigs. Early detection of precursor signs of tail biting provides the opportunity to take preventive measures, thus avoiding the occurrence of the tail biting event. This study aimed to build a machine-learning algorithm for real-time detection of upcoming tail biting outbreaks, using feeding behaviour data recorded by an electronic feeder. Prediction capacities of seven machine learning algorithms (Generalized Linear Model with Stepwise Feature Selection, random forest, Support Vector Machines with Radial Basis Function Kernel, Bayesian Generalized Linear Model, Neural network, K-nearest neighbour, and Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis) were evaluated from daily feeding data collected from 65 pens originating from two herds of grower-finisher pigs (25-100kg), in which 27 tail biting events occurred. Data were divided into training and testing data in two different ways, either by randomly splitting data into 75% (training set) and 25% (testing set), or by randomly selecting pens to constitute the testing set. In the first data splitting, the model is regularly updated with previous data from the pen, whereas in the second data splitting, the model tries to predict for a pen that it has never seen before. The K-nearest neighbour algorithm was able to predict 78% of the upcoming events with an accuracy of 96%, when predicting events in pens for which it had previous data. Our results indicate that machine learning models can be considered for implementation into automatic feeder systems for real-time prediction of tail biting events.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".