MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024801412 · doi:10.3390/s111110534

Automated Image Analysis for the Detection of Benthic Crustaceans and Bacterial Mat Coverage Using the VENUS Undersea Cabled Network

2011· article· en· W2024801412 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jacopo Aguzzi, Corrado Costa, Katleen Robert, Marjolaine Matabos, Francesca Antonucci, S. Kim Juniper, Paolo Menesatti

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundMinistero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e ForestaliNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsRGB color modelArtificial intelligenceBenthic zoneComputer scienceRemote sensingComputer visionGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development and deployment of sensors for undersea cabled observatories is presently biased toward the measurement of habitat variables, while sensor technologies for biological community characterization through species identification and individual counting are less common. The VENUS cabled multisensory network (Vancouver Island, Canada) deploys seafloor camera systems at several sites. Our objective in this study was to implement new automated image analysis protocols for the recognition and counting of benthic decapods (i.e., the galatheid squat lobster, Munida quadrispina), as well as for the evaluation of changes in bacterial mat coverage (i.e., Beggiatoa spp.), using a camera deployed in Saanich Inlet (103 m depth). For the counting of Munida we remotely acquired 100 digital photos at hourly intervals from 2 to 6 December 2009. In the case of bacterial mat coverage estimation, images were taken from 2 to 8 December 2009 at the same time frequency. The automated image analysis protocols for both study cases were created in MatLab 7.1. Automation for Munida counting incorporated the combination of both filtering and background correction (Median- and Top-Hat Filters) with Euclidean Distances (ED) on Red-Green-Blue (RGB) channels. The Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) features and Fourier Descriptors (FD) of tracked objects were then extracted. Animal classifications were carried out with the tools of morphometric multivariate statistic (i.e., Partial Least Square Discriminant Analysis; PLSDA) on Mean RGB (RGBv) value for each object and Fourier Descriptors (RGBv+FD) matrices plus SIFT and ED. The SIFT approach returned the better results. Higher percentages of images were correctly classified and lower misclassification errors (an animal is present but not detected) occurred. In contrast, RGBv+FD and ED resulted in a high incidence of records being generated for non-present animals. Bacterial mat coverage was estimated in terms of Percent Coverage and Fractal Dimension. A constant Region of Interest (ROI) was defined and background extraction by a Gaussian Blurring Filter was performed. Image subtraction within ROI was followed by the sum of the RGB channels matrices. Percent Coverage was calculated on the resulting image. Fractal Dimension was estimated using the box-counting method. The images were then resized to a dimension in pixels equal to a power of 2, allowing subdivision into sub-multiple quadrants. In comparisons of manual and automated Percent Coverage and Fractal Dimension estimates, the former showed an overestimation tendency for both parameters. The primary limitations on the automatic analysis of benthic images were habitat variations in sediment texture and water column turbidity. The application of filters for background corrections is a required preliminary step for the efficient recognition of animals and bacterial mat patches.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207