Analyzing Cattle Activity Patterns with Ear Tag Accelerometer Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we equip two breeds of cattle located in tropical and temperate climates with smart ear tags containing triaxial accelerometers to measure their activity levels across different time periods. We produce activity profiles when measured by each of four statistical features, the mean, median, standard deviation, and median absolute deviation of the Euclidean norm of either unfiltered or high-pass-filtered accelerometer readings over five-minute windows. We then aggregate the values from the 5 min windows into hourly or daily (24 h) totals to produce activity profiles for animals kept in each of the test environments. To gain a better understanding of the variation between the peak and nadir activity levels within a 24 h period, we divide each day into multiple equal-length intervals, which can range from 2 to 96 intervals. We then calculate a statistical measure, called daily differential activity (DDA), by computing the differences in feature values for each interval pair. Our findings demonstrate that patterns within the activity profile are more clearly visualised from readings that have been subject to high-pass filtering and that the median of the acceleration vector norm is the most reliable feature for characterising activity and calculating the DDA measure. The underlying causes for these differences remain elusive and is likely attributable to environmental factors, cattle breeds, or management practices. Activity profiles produced from the standard deviation (a feature routinely applied to the quantification of activity level) showed less uniformity between animals and larger variation in values overall. Assessing activity using ear tag accelerometers holds promise for monitoring animal health and welfare. However, optimal results may only be attainable when true diurnal patterns are detected and accounted for.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".