MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582418025 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12746

Expert, Crowd, Students or Algorithm: who holds the key to deep‐sea imagery ‘big data’ processing?

2017· article· en· W2582418025 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marjolaine Matabos, Maia Hoeberechts, Carol Doya, Jacopo Aguzzi, Jessica Nephin, T. E. Reimchen, Steve Leaver, Roswitha M. Marx, Alexandra Branzan Albu, Ryan Fier, U. Fernández-Arcaya, S. Kim Juniper

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsOcean Networks Canada SocietyUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsCrowdsourcingSeafloor spreadingCitizen scienceComputer sciencePaleoanthropologyArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingOceanographyGeologyGeographyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Recent technological development has increased our capacity to study the deep sea and the marine benthic realm, particularly with the development of multidisciplinary seafloor observatories. Since 2006, Ocean Networks Canada cabled observatories, have acquired nearly 65 TB and over 90 000 h of video data from seafloor cameras and remotely operated vehicles. Manual processing of these data is time‐consuming and highly labour‐intensive, and cannot be comprehensively undertaken by individual researchers. These videos are a crucial source of information for assessing natural variability and ecosystem responses to increasing human activity in the deep sea. We compared the performance of three groups of humans and one computer vision algorithm in counting individuals of the commercially important sablefish (or black cod) Anoplopoma fimbria , in recorded video from a cabled camera platform at 900 m depth in a submarine canyon in the Northeast Pacific. The first group of human observers were untrained volunteers recruited via a crowdsourcing platform and the second were experienced university students, who performed the task for their ichthyology class. Results were validated against counts obtained from a scientific expert. All groups produced relatively accurate results in comparison to the expert and all succeeded in detecting patterns and periodicities in fish abundance data. Trained volunteers displayed the highest accuracy and the algorithm the lowest. As seafloor observatories increase in number around the world, this study demonstrates the value of a hybrid combination of crowdsourcing and computer vision techniques as a tool to help process large volumes of imagery to support basic research and environmental monitoring. Reciprocally, by engaging large numbers of online participants in deep‐sea research, this approach can contribute significantly to ocean literacy and informed citizen input to policy development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207