ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Using Machine Learning for Remote Behaviour Classification-Verifying Acceleration Data to Infer Feeding Events in Free-Ranging Cheetahs.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Activity Tracking and Space Use Monitoring of Captive Jaguars with Machine Learning.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Six decades of animal accelerometry: trends, applications, and future directions.Movement ecology · 2026Review
- Open wide: Identifying North Atlantic right whale feeding behaviour using camera-validated kinematic data and machine learning.PloS one · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Behavioural studies of elusive wildlife species are challenging but important when they are threatened and involved in human-wildlife conflicts. Accelerometers (ACCs) and supervised machine learning algorithms (MLAs) are valuable tools to remotely determine behaviours. Here we used five captive cheetahs in Namibia to test the applicability of ACC data in identifying six behaviours by using six MLAs on data we ground-truthed by direct observations. We included two ensemble learning approaches and a probability threshold to improve prediction accuracy. We used the model to then identify the behaviours in four free-ranging cheetah males. Feeding behaviours identified by the model and matched with corresponding GPS clusters were verified with previously identified kill sites in the field. The MLAs and the two ensemble learning approaches in the captive cheetahs achieved precision (recall) ranging from 80.1% to 100.0% (87.3% to 99.2%) for resting, walking and trotting/running behaviour, from 74.4% to 81.6% (54.8% and 82.4%) for feeding behaviour and from 0.0% to 97.1% (0.0% and 56.2%) for drinking and grooming behaviour. The model application to the ACC data of the free-ranging cheetahs successfully identified all nine kill sites and 17 of the 18 feeding events of the two brother groups. We demonstrated that our behavioural model reliably detects feeding events of free-ranging cheetahs. This has useful applications for the determination of cheetah kill sites and helping to mitigate human-cheetah conflicts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.