A Dataset of Visible Light and Thermal Infrared Images for Health Monitoring of Caged Laying Hens in Large-scale Farming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering animal welfare, the free-range laying hen farming model is increasingly gaining attention. However, in some countries, large-scale farming still relies on the cage-rearing model, making the focus on the welfare of caged laying hens equally important. To evaluate the health status of caged laying hens, a dataset comprising visible light and thermal infrared images was established for analyses, including morphological, thermographic, comb, and behavioural as-sessments, enabling a comprehensive evaluation of the hens' health, behaviour, and population counts. To address the issue of insufficient data samples in the health detection process for indi-vidual and group hens, a dataset named BClayinghens was constructed containing 61,133 images of visible light and thermal infrared images. The BClayinghens dataset was completed using three types of devices: smartphones, visible light cameras, and infrared thermal cameras. All thermal infrared images correspond to visible light images and have achieved positional alignment through coordinate correction. Additionally, the visible light images were annotated with chicken head labels, obtaining 63,693 chicken head labels, which can be directly used for training deep learning models for chicken head object detection and combined with corresponding thermal infrared data to analyze the temperature of the chicken heads. To enable the constructed deep-learning object detection and recognition models to adapt to different breeding environ-ments, various data enhancement methods such as rotation, shearing, colour enhancement, and noise addition were used for image processing. The BClayinghens dataset is important for ap-plying visible light images and corresponding thermal infrared images in the health detection, behavioural analysis, and counting of caged laying hens under large-scale farming.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".