Research Note: Validation of a low-cost accelerometer to measure physical activity in 30 to 32-d-old male Ross 708 broilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poultry activity measurements are often associated with expensive equipment or time-consuming behavior observations. Since low-cost accelerometers are available, the current study validated the FitBark (FitBark 2, FitBark Inc., Kansas City, MO) accelerometer for use on 30 to 32-d-old male Ross 708 broilers. The FitBark provides aggregated activity levels based on tri-axial accelerometer technology. Broilers were housed in 5 rooms, each divided into 12 2 × 2.3 m pens (60 birds per pen, 31 kg m−2 final density). From 30 to 32 d, one broiler per room (n=5) was randomly selected and equipped with a 13 g FitBark. Elastic loops were placed around the wings to secure the FitBark medially on the back. During the same time, validity was assessed via ceiling-mounted video cameras. The video recordings were analyzed using 20-min continuous sampling during the photo phase at 8 time periods per bird. Behavior was assessed every second using an ethogram (9,600 data points per bird). In the first step, the FitBark data were matched and correlated with the corresponding video-based observed activity (OA) data. The FitBark and OA data were not normally distributed (1-sample KS test, all n=800, ZFitBark=0.21, ZOA=0.24, all P<0.001). Therefore, data were transformed, and a repeated measures correlation was performed for each bird, showing a positive correlation between the FitBark and OA data (rrm=0.76, 95% CI=0.72-0.78, df=794, P<0.001). In the second step, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated. The FitBark correctly identified 91% (sensitivity) of the active and 74% (specificity) of the inactive birds. When the FitBark detected an active or inactive bird, there was a probability of 89% (PPV) and 78% (NPV) that the bird was observed to be active or inactive based on the OA data. Accuracy was at 86%. Overall, FitBark are useful for 1-min interval activity measurements in 30 to 32-d-old male Ross 708 broilers. Further research should focus on validating the FitBark at other ages and in different poultry species.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".