MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387470644 · doi:10.1093/jas/skad347

A computer vision image differential approach for automatic detection of aggressive behavior in pigs using deep learning

2023· article· en· W4387470644 on OpenAlexafffund
Jasmine Fraser, Harry Aricibasi, Dan Tulpan, Renée Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligencePoolingPattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningComputer scienceDropout (neural networks)Image (mathematics)Sigmoid functionMachine learningArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pig aggression is a major problem facing the industry as it negatively affects both the welfare and the productivity of group-housed pigs. This study aimed to use a supervised deep learning (DL) approach based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) and image differential to automatically detect aggressive behaviors in pairs of pigs. Different pairs of unfamiliar piglets (N = 32) were placed into one of the two observation pens for 3 d, where they were video recorded each day for 1 h following mixing, resulting in 16 h of video recordings of which 1.25 h were selected for modeling. Four different approaches based on the number of frames skipped (1, 5, or 10 for Diff1, Diff5, and Diff10, respectively) and the amalgamation of multiple image differences into one (blended) were used to create four different datasets. Two CNN models were tested, with architectures based on the Visual Geometry Group (VGG) VGG-16 model architecture, consisting of convolutional layers, max-pooling layers, dense layers, and dropout layers. While both models had similar architectures, the second CNN model included stacked convolutional layers. Nine different sigmoid activation function thresholds between 0.1 and 1.0 were evaluated and a 0.5 threshold was selected to be used for testing. The stacked CNN model correctly predicted aggressive behaviors with the highest testing accuracy (0.79), precision (0.81), recall (0.77), and area under the curve (0.86) values. When analyzing the model recall for behavior subtypes prediction, mounting and mobile non-aggressive behaviors were the hardest to classify (recall = 0.63 and 0.75), while head biting, immobile, and parallel pressing were easy to classify (recall = 0.95, 0.94, and 0.91). Runtimes were also analyzed with the blended dataset, taking four times less time to train and validate than the Diff1, Diff5, and Diff10 datasets. Preprocessing time was reduced by up to 2.3 times in the blended dataset compared to the other datasets and, when combined with testing runtimes, it satisfied the requirements for real-time systems capable of detecting aggressive behavior in pairs of pigs. Overall, these results show that using a CNN and image differential-based deep learning approach can be an effective and computationally efficient technique to automatically detect aggressive behaviors in pigs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207