MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404879202 · doi:10.1016/j.atech.2024.100683

Predicting main behaviors of beef bulls from accelerometer data: A machine learning framework

2024· article· en· W4404879202 on OpenAlexaff
Vinicius A. Camargo, Edmond A. Pajor, Sayeh Bayat, Jennifer M. Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenueSmart Agricultural Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Supply Chain Traceability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerometerComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Five behaviors of beef bulls were predicted from low sampling rate accelerometers. • A tree-like hierarchical classifier is described to make predictions on two levels. • Models created from data sampled at 1 Hz are more accurate than 0.5 Hz. • Grazing, Resting, and Ruminating showed higher accuracy than Walking and Fighting. Traditional methods to monitor free-range cattle, such as breeding beef bulls, are time-consuming. However, most current remote monitoring technologies operate at high sampling rates, making their use on bulls impractical due to their high battery consumption. Therefore, this study aims to describe and evaluate a machine-learning framework to predict the behaviors of beef bulls from raw accelerometer data at low sampling rates. Collars with 3D-accelerometers were deployed on 33 bulls, recording accelerometer data at 0.5 Hz (22 bulls in 2020 and 2021) or 1.0 Hz (11 bulls in 2023). Videos of bulls in pens, synched with the accelerometer by time, were recorded and analyzed. The behaviors investigated were grazing (GR), resting (RE), ruminating (RU), walking (WA), and in 2023, fighting (FI). Primary labels of activity (AC), corresponding to GR, WA, and FI, and non-activity (NA), corresponding to RE and RU, were assigned. Two datasets were created from data sampled at 1.0 Hz and 0.5 Hz. Then, behavioral events with duration within the inferior 0.05 quantile of the distribution for each behavior were removed, integrated measures of motion were calculated, and segmentation into consecutive 20 s time-windows was performed. Afterward, 132 frequency and time-domain features were extracted, and bulls’ ages were added as a physical feature. Two bulls from each year and dataset were segregated to form independent test sets. A leave-one-animal-out cross-validation (LOAO) was applied to Extratree classifiers to select relevant features. The final classifier was built in a hierarchical structure using XGBoost classifiers to make predictions on two levels: (1) distinguishing between AC and NA, and (2) categorizing AC into GR, WA, FI, and NA into RE or RU. This model was evaluated using LOAO and test sets for each dataset, and precision and sensitivity were calculated for each behavior. Matthews Correlation (MCC) and Cohen's Kappa (CK) coefficients were calculated for the overall assessment of the models’ levels. Comparisons of metrics obtained on LOAO and test sets were performed using the Wilcoxon Sum Rank and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. The LOAO MCC for 1.0 Hz (1st level = 0.98 ± 0.01, 2nd level = 0.92 ± 0.02) was higher than 0.5 Hz (1st level = 0.83 ± 0.20, 2nd level = 0.71 ± 0.20). In 1.0 Hz, all behaviors presented mean precision and sensitivity above 0.7, except the sensitivity of FI (LOAO = 0.47 ± 0.06, test set = 0.63 ± 0.18). In 0.5 Hz, the exception was the sensitivity of WA (LOAO = 0.58 ± 0.28, test set = 0.68 ± 0.06) and the sensitivity of RU in the test set (0.54 ± 0.26). Therefore, the proposed framework can be used to predict the behaviors of beef bulls from accelerometers sampling at 0.5 Hz or 1.0 Hz, although better results are observed at 1.0 Hz. Caution should be exercised for predicting FI at 1.0 Hz and WA at 0.5 Hz.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmart Agricultural TechnologySame topicFood Supply Chain TraceabilityFrench-language works237,207