Validation of a leg-mounted pedometer for the measurement of steps in lactating Holstein cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to validate the pedometer AfiAct II (AfiMilk) for the measurement of steps in lactating Holstein cows housed in a freestall design by assessing its agreement with visual observation of step counts. A total of 41 primiparous (n = 12) and multiparous (n = 29) cows were enrolled in the study between August and September 2018. Steps were monitored continuously by the pedometer and visually assessed for a 24-h period using video recordings. Visually observed steps were categorized as walking and stationary steps. The total number of steps taken per cow was calculated using the sum of walking and stationary steps. Unprocessed step count data from the study day were retrieved from the AfiMilk system in time-blocks of approximately 15 min. Repeated measures correlation was used to quantify the association between the pedometer measurements and visual observation of step counts. Nonindependence among observations were accounted adjusting for interindividual (cow) variability with an analysis of covariance. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were categorized from negligible (0.00-0.30) to very high (0.90-1.00). Bland-Altman plots were created to evaluate the bias between the pedometer and visual observations. A total of 2,261 time-blocks were used in this study with an average (mean ± standard deviation) of 55.14 ± 8.1 time-blocks per cow. A high correlation was found for the evaluation between the pedometer and observed walking steps (r = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73-0.76), stationary steps (r = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.69-0.63), and total steps (r = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.87-0.89). The results of the Bland-Altman plot suggested limited bias between the pedometer step counts and visual observation of steps, independent of the type of steps. Numerical differences and several time-block differences outside of the 95% interval of agreement suggested an overestimation of step counts by the pedometer, which increased as the number of steps increased. The pedometer measured, on average, 97.6 ± 118.5 (28%), 249.2 ± 126.2 (125%), and 297.2 ± 205.4 (196%) steps/day more than the visual observed total steps, stationary steps, and walking steps, respectively. Our findings indicate that the pedometer counts all movement in which the pedometer leg is lifted off the floor without distinguishing if there was body movement of the animal.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".