Crowd sourcing remote comparative lameness assessments for dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lameness assessments are rarely conducted routinely on dairy farms and when completed typically underestimate lameness prevalence, hampering early diagnosis and treatment. A well-known feature of many perceptual tasks is that relative assessments are more accurate than absolute assessments, suggesting that creating methods that allow for the relative scoring of which cow is more lame will allow for reliable lameness assessments. Here we developed and tested a remote comparative lameness assessment method: we recruited nonexperienced crowd workers via an online platform and asked them to watch 2 videos side-by-side, each showing a cow walking, and to identify which cow was more lame and by how much (on a scale of -3 to 3). We created 11 tasks, each with 10 video pairs for comparison, and recruited 50 workers per task. All tasks were also completed by 5 experienced cattle lameness assessors. We evaluated data filtering and clustering methods based on worker responses and determined the agreement among workers, among experienced assessors, and between these groups. A moderate to high interobserver reliability was observed (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.46 to 0.77) for crowd workers and agreement was high among the experienced assessors (ICC = 0.87). Average crowd-worker responses showed excellent agreement with the average of experienced assessor responses (ICC = 0.89 to 0.91), regardless of data processing method. To investigate if we could use fewer workers per task while still retaining high agreement with experienced assessors, we randomly subsampled 2 to 43 (1 less than the minimum number of workers retained per task after data cleaning) workers from each task. The agreement with experienced assessors increased substantially as we increased the number of workers from 2 to 10, but little increase was observed after 10 or more workers were used (ICC > 0.80). The proposed method provides a fast and cost-effective way to assess lameness in commercial herds. In addition, this method allows for large-scale data collection useful for training computer vision algorithms that could be used to automate lameness assessments on farm.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".