Quantifying bat call detection performance of humans and machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods for detecting echolocation calls in field recordings of bats vary in performance and influence the effective range of a recording system. In experiments using synthetic calls from five species, human detection accuracy was 89.7+/-0.6%, compared to 76.3+/-0.8% for a model-based detector, 72.2+/-0.8% for an energy-based detector, and 98.4+/-0.2% for an optimal linear detector. The energy-based detector was 11 times faster than the model-based detector and 110 times faster than humans. Human accuracy was positively correlated with test duration (R(2)=0.43, P<0.05), meaning that higher accuracy was achieved at the expense of slower performance. Species was a significant factor determining accuracy for all detectors (P<0.001) because of call bandwidth: Narrowband calls concentrated energy in a narrower frequency band and were easier to detect. For a hypothetical recording system, range at 90% human detection accuracy varied from 10 to 35 m among species, while range dropped by approximately 20% using the automated detectors. The optimal detector outperformed humans by 5 dB and the automated methods by 9 dB. The results quantify the tradeoff between detector speed and accuracy and are useful for designing field studies of bats.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".