MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406912145 · doi:10.1093/tas/txaf011

Validation of proximity loggers to record proximity events among beef bulls

2025· article· en· W4406912145 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta InnovatesAgriculture Funding Consortium
KeywordsTelemetryFalse positive paradoxProximity sensorStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social behavior in cattle can be measured by how often and for how long they interact with each other. This information can be used to guide management decisions, identify sick animals, or model the spread of diseases. However, visual observation of proximity events is time-demanding and challenging, especially for rangeland cattle spread over a large area. Although proximity loggers can potentially overcome these challenges remotely, it is unknown how accurate these devices are in recording proximity events among beef bulls. The objectives of this study were: 1) to determine the accuracy of Lotek LiteTrack LR collars with built-in proximity loggers to identify proximity events among bulls and 2) to determine the accuracy of Lotek LiteTrack LR collars to identify proximity events between bulls wearing collars and bulls wearing the Lotek V7E 154D ear tag proximity transmitter. Collars were deployed in 12 bulls in 2021 (Experiment 1), and 10 bulls (5 collars and 5 ear tags) in 2023 (Experiment 2). Videos were recorded of bull behavior in both years to compare proximity observed to proximity recorded by the loggers. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), precision (Pr), and accuracy (Ac) were calculated after computing true positives (TP), false positives (FP), false negatives (FN), and true negatives (TN). The interquartile range method was used to detect outliers. As collars work as both a transmitter and receiver in Exp. 1, reciprocity was assessed by the Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) as an indirect measure of reliability. In Exp. 1, most observations were TN (95.13%), followed by FN (4.11%), TP (0.70%), and FP (0.06%). A high Sp (median = 1.0; 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.0), Pr (1.00; 0.72 to 1.0), and Ac (0.96; 0.95 to 0.97), and low Se (0.10; 0.06 to 0.21) were observed. A high reciprocity agreement (0.93; 0.89 to 0.96) was also observed. Likewise, in Exp. 2 most observations were TN (85.05%), followed by FN (9.94%), TP (4.36%), and FP (0.65%), while high Sp (0.99; 0.99 to 1.0), Pr (0.89; 0.80 to 0.92), and Ac (0.95; 0.81 to 0.95), and low Se (0.35; 0.24 to 0.61) was observed. The Pr of two loggers in Exp. 1 and Pr and Ac of one logger in Exp. 2 were considered outliers. In conclusion, both proximity loggers demonstrated high precision, specificity, and accuracy but low sensitivity in recording proximity among beef bulls. Therefore, these characteristics should be considered when deciding whether to use these devices or not.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.294 · 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