0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Sheep's coping style can be identified by unsupervised machine learning from unlabeled data

      Behavioural Processes
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d8401375e51">The objective of this study was to define coping style of sheep by using unsupervised machine learning approaches. A total of 105 Norduz sheep (age 3-5 years) were subjected to a 5-minute arena test. Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (HCA) was performed on scores of selected principal components retained from Principal Components Analysis (PCA) on arena behaviors to identify sheep coping style. Initially, the variables retained for the PCA were determined with Bartlett's test for sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy. Seven behavioral variables with KMO values greater than 0.5 were used for final PCA: the average distance to group sheep (DTG), the average distance to stimulus (DTS), the duration of locomotion (LOC), the total number of zone boundaries crossed during the test (CRS), the total number of times that tested sheep sniffed stimulus (NSS), latency to the first sniff the stimulus (LSS), and subjective scores (SCR) scored by an observer on a scale from 1 to 5 (1: extremely calm, 5: extremely restless). The first two components, which were the only ones with an eigenvalue greater than one, accounted for 70.32% of the total variation and were used for clustering analysis. Clustering tendency showed that the scores for the first two components were suitable for clustering (Hopkins' H = 0.852). Several cluster validity indexes were used to obtain aggregated results to determine the most appropriate clustering method and number of clusters. Five different clustering methods: k-means and hierarchical clustering with Ward, average, single and complete linkage were compared. Bootstrap resampling was used to evaluate the stability of a given cluster using the Jaccard coefficient. The clustering method and number of clusters corresponding to the highest rank aggregation score from the bootstrap resampling indicate that the hierarchical clustering method with average linkage and 5 clusters is the most suggested clustering method. However, Ward's algorithm identified the strongest clustering structure for hierarchical clustering, as it had the highest agglomerative coefficient value (0.98). When both Jaccard and aggregation scores are considered together, Ward's method with 3 clusters was selected as the most appropriate method. Sheep were classified into three coping styles (CS) based on HCA results as reactive (Cluster 1, n = 71), intermediate (Cluster 2, n = 22) or proactive (Cluster 3, n = 12). Coping style had significant effect on behavioral variables, DTG, DTS, LOC, CRS and NSS (P &lt; 0.05). The individuals that have proactive coping style had the highest mean values for the variables DTG, DTS and LOC and SCR (P &lt; 0.0001). This indicates that proactive sheep are more active then reactive sheep. The CRS, LOC and NSS mean values were higher for intermediate sheep compared to reactive sheep (P &lt; 0.05). The NSS values were higher for intermediate sheep compare to proactive sheep (P &lt; 0.0001). The findings of the current study show that distinct coping styles in sheep may be identified based on behaviors recorded in an arena test. The findings also revealed that sheep's coping style can be objectively identified by unsupervised machine learning from unlabeled behavioral data. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.

          Simultaneous inference is a common problem in many areas of application. If multiple null hypotheses are tested simultaneously, the probability of rejecting erroneously at least one of them increases beyond the pre-specified significance level. Simultaneous inference procedures have to be used which adjust for multiplicity and thus control the overall type I error rate. In this paper we describe simultaneous inference procedures in general parametric models, where the experimental questions are specified through a linear combination of elemental model parameters. The framework described here is quite general and extends the canonical theory of multiple comparison procedures in ANOVA models to linear regression problems, generalized linear models, linear mixed effects models, the Cox model, robust linear models, etc. Several examples using a variety of different statistical models illustrate the breadth of the results. For the analyses we use the R add-on package multcomp, which provides a convenient interface to the general approach adopted here. Copyright 2008 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            FactoMineR: AnRPackage for Multivariate Analysis

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              glmmTMB Balances Speed and Flexibility Among Packages for Zero-inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Behavioural Processes
                Behavioural Processes
                Elsevier BV
                03766357
                January 2022
                January 2022
                : 194
                : 104559
                Article
                10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104559
                34838901
                f99e2b18-0563-4688-9ba7-692909337e93
                © 2022

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article