MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ROBOTIC FEED ON CATTLE FARMS DISTRIBUTING

2025· article· W7117597542 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victoria Yurievna Sidorova

Bibliographic record

VenueSCIENTIFIC LIFE · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationRobotWork (physics)Mobile robotVolume (thermodynamics)RoboticsAutomatic control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several large domestic and foreign companies, including Lely Vector, Hetwin – automation systems GmbH, and others, are currently engaged in the issues of cattle robotic feeding. Automated robo-feeding simultaneously performs several functions: various types (n=99) of feed mixtures’ crushing, mixing, and distributing to produce groups of animals (n=16 or more). Fully robotic feed dispensers perform several producing operations: weighing, cutting, mixing, dosing, feed transporting, etc. The volume of the hopper of such mixers are 2-4 m3, weight 1,3-1,4 tons, productivity of 40-400 animals. These robots feeding are automatically powered, powered by a battery or accumulators, and drive through the cowshed for the most part without a rail system using. If a rail system is used, it is usually laid under the floor. There is a variant of movement magnetic traction using. Currently, robotic feed distribution systems are used along with automated ones. Among the foreign samples of automated feed dispensers used on domestic farms, it is appropriate to mention, first of all, such brands as De Laval VM-12, V-MIX 10 N ECO, BelMix T-659 and others. Robotic systems differ from mechanized and automated feed distribution systems in a number of advantages. One of them is that robot feed dispensers can work with both large and small numbers of animals: if the mobile automated feed dispensers KTU-10, AKM-9, RMM-5,0, KSP-0,8, etc., have a hopper volume of 10-11 m3, then robots with a smaller 2,5-3 volume a similar amount for feed distributing. Depending on the modification of automated feed dispensers, the power of various models reaches 1.5-7.5 kW; feed mixing capacity per hour is 1000-1600 kg; one–time unloading with an average density of 350 kg/m3 of feed mixture is inferior to robotic analogues, which have the best advantage in weight – 1.2-1.2 tons, against 10.7-12.7.-14.0. All feed distribution processes in automated agricultural machines are unchanged, whereas in robotic systems they can be rebuilt during the process, programmed and controlled.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.011

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSCIENTIFIC LIFESame topicAnimal Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207