Automated Image Analysis for the Detection of Benthic Crustaceans and Bacterial Mat Coverage Using the VENUS Undersea Cabled Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".