人工智能与人类观察在牛处理和屠宰评估中的比较。

IF 2.7 2区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Animals Pub Date : 2025-05-03 DOI:10.3390/ani15091325
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

屠宰设施使用各种工具来评估动物处理,包括但不限于现场审计、远程视频审计的使用和一些人工智能技术。本研究的目的是确定人工智能和人类评估者对屠宰厂关键牛处理结果的评估之间的相似性。从英国一家屠宰场收集了112个牛处理和眩晕的视频片段。人工智能识别出以下事件的存在或不存在:眩晕、电棒使用、坠落、钢笔拥挤和可疑处理事件。三名人工评估人员对这些结果进行了评分。生成4个不同的数据集,并生成Jaccard相似度指数。在电击、电棒使用方面有很高的相似性(JI b> 0.90),并且落在评估者和AI之间。Pen Crowding的一致性较高(JI > 0.80)。在识别可疑的动物处理事件时,人类和人工智能之间存在差异(JI≥0.50),但人工智能擅长识别事件以供进一步审查。在屠宰场环境中使用人工智能来协助牛的处理,可以成为加强动物福利计划的一个额外工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Animals
Animals Agricultural 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).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信