MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391320835 · doi:10.3389/frai.2024.1299169

Intelligent weight prediction of cows based on semantic segmentation and back propagation neural network

2024· article· en· W4391320835 on OpenAlexaff
Beibei Xu, Yifan Mao, Wensheng Wang, Guipeng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial neural networkComputer scienceBackpropagationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMean squared errorSustainabilityField (mathematics)StatisticsMathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate prediction of cattle weight is essential for enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of livestock management practices. However, conventional methods often involve labor-intensive procedures and lack instant and non-invasive solutions. This study proposed an intelligent weight prediction approach for cows based on semantic segmentation and Back Propagation (BP) neural network. The proposed semantic segmentation method leveraged a hybrid model which combined ResNet-101-D with the Squeeze-and-Excitation (SE) attention mechanism to obtain precise morphological features from cow images. The body size parameters and physical measurements were then used for training the regression-based machine learning models to estimate the weight of individual cattle. The comparative analysis methods revealed that the BP neural network achieved the best results with an MAE of 13.11 pounds and an RMSE of 22.73 pounds. By eliminating the need for physical contact, this approach not only improves animal welfare but also mitigates potential risks. The work addresses the specific needs of welfare farming and aims to promote animal welfare and advance the field of precision agriculture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Artificial IntelligenceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207