Lily Edwards-Callaway, Huey Yi Loh, Carina Kautsky, Paxton Sullivan
{"title":"人工智能与人类观察在牛处理和屠宰评估中的比较。","authors":"Lily Edwards-Callaway, Huey Yi Loh, Carina Kautsky, Paxton Sullivan","doi":"10.3390/ani15091325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Slaughter facilities use a variety of tools to evaluate animal handling, including but not limited to live audits, the use of remote video auditing, and some AI technologies. The objective of this study was to determine the similarity between AI and human evaluator assessments of critical cattle handling outcomes in a slaughter plant. One hundred twelve video clips of cattle handling and stunning from a slaughter plant in the United Kingdom were collected. The AI identified the presence or absence of: Stunning, Electric Prod Usage, Falling, Pen Crowding, and Questionable Handling Events. Three human evaluators scored the videos for these outcomes. Four different datasets were generated, and Jaccard similarity indices were generated. There was high similarity (JI > 0.90) for Stunning, Electric Prod Usage, and Falls between the evaluators and the AI. There was high consistency (JI > 0.80) for Pen Crowding. There were differences (JI ≥ 0.50) between the humans and the AI when identifying Questionable Animal Handling Events but the AI was adept at identifying events for further review. The implementation of AI to assist with cattle handling in a slaughter facility environment could be an added tool to enhance animal welfare programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":7955,"journal":{"name":"Animals","volume":"15 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12071094/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Observation in the Assessment of Cattle Handling and Slaughter.\",\"authors\":\"Lily Edwards-Callaway, Huey Yi Loh, Carina Kautsky, Paxton Sullivan\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/ani15091325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Slaughter facilities use a variety of tools to evaluate animal handling, including but not limited to live audits, the use of remote video auditing, and some AI technologies. The objective of this study was to determine the similarity between AI and human evaluator assessments of critical cattle handling outcomes in a slaughter plant. One hundred twelve video clips of cattle handling and stunning from a slaughter plant in the United Kingdom were collected. The AI identified the presence or absence of: Stunning, Electric Prod Usage, Falling, Pen Crowding, and Questionable Handling Events. Three human evaluators scored the videos for these outcomes. Four different datasets were generated, and Jaccard similarity indices were generated. There was high similarity (JI > 0.90) for Stunning, Electric Prod Usage, and Falls between the evaluators and the AI. There was high consistency (JI > 0.80) for Pen Crowding. There were differences (JI ≥ 0.50) between the humans and the AI when identifying Questionable Animal Handling Events but the AI was adept at identifying events for further review. The implementation of AI to assist with cattle handling in a slaughter facility environment could be an added tool to enhance animal welfare programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animals\",\"volume\":\"15 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12071094/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15091325\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animals","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15091325","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Observation in the Assessment of Cattle Handling and Slaughter.
Slaughter facilities use a variety of tools to evaluate animal handling, including but not limited to live audits, the use of remote video auditing, and some AI technologies. The objective of this study was to determine the similarity between AI and human evaluator assessments of critical cattle handling outcomes in a slaughter plant. One hundred twelve video clips of cattle handling and stunning from a slaughter plant in the United Kingdom were collected. The AI identified the presence or absence of: Stunning, Electric Prod Usage, Falling, Pen Crowding, and Questionable Handling Events. Three human evaluators scored the videos for these outcomes. Four different datasets were generated, and Jaccard similarity indices were generated. There was high similarity (JI > 0.90) for Stunning, Electric Prod Usage, and Falls between the evaluators and the AI. There was high consistency (JI > 0.80) for Pen Crowding. There were differences (JI ≥ 0.50) between the humans and the AI when identifying Questionable Animal Handling Events but the AI was adept at identifying events for further review. The implementation of AI to assist with cattle handling in a slaughter facility environment could be an added tool to enhance animal welfare programs.
AnimalsAgricultural and Biological Sciences-Animal Science and Zoology
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
3015
审稿时长
20.52 days
期刊介绍：
Animals (ISSN 2076-2615) is an international and interdisciplinary scholarly open access journal. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications, and short notes that are relevant to any field of study that involves animals, including zoology, ethnozoology, animal science, animal ethics and animal welfare. However, preference will be given to those articles that provide an understanding of animals within a larger context (i.e., the animals'' interactions with the outside world, including humans). There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental details and/or method of study, must be provided for research articles. Articles submitted that involve subjecting animals to unnecessary pain or suffering will not be accepted, and all articles must be submitted with the necessary ethical approval (please refer to the Ethical Guidelines for more information).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
