MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901771398 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13133

Past, present and future approaches using computer vision for animal re‐identification from camera trap data

2018· article· en· W2901771398 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCamera trapDeep learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePopulationData scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ability of a researcher to re‐identify (re‐ ID ) an individual animal upon re‐encounter is fundamental for addressing a broad range of questions in the study of ecosystem function, community and population dynamics and behavioural ecology. Tagging animals during mark and recapture studies is the most common method for reliable animal re‐ ID ; however, camera traps are a desirable alternative, requiring less labour, much less intrusion and prolonged and continuous monitoring into an environment. Despite these advantages, the analyses of camera traps and video for re‐ ID by humans are criticized for their biases related to human judgement and inconsistencies between analyses. In this review, we describe a brief history of camera traps for re‐ ID , present a collection of computer vision feature engineering methodologies previously used for animal re‐ ID , provide an introduction to the underlying mechanisms of deep learning relevant to animal re‐ ID , highlight the success of deep learning methods for human re‐ ID , describe the few ecological studies currently utilizing deep learning for camera trap analyses and our predictions for near future methodologies based on the rapid development of deep learning methods. For decades, ecologists with expertise in computer vision have successfully utilized feature engineering to extract meaningful features from camera trap images to improve the statistical rigor of individual comparisons and remove human bias from their camera trap analyses. Recent years have witnessed the emergence of deep learning systems which have demonstrated the accurate re‐ ID of humans based on image and video data with near perfect accuracy. Despite this success, ecologists have yet to utilize these approaches for animal re‐ ID . By utilizing novel deep learning methods for object detection and similarity comparisons, ecologists can extract animals from an image/video data and train deep learning classifiers to re‐ ID animal individuals beyond the capabilities of a human observer. This methodology will allow ecologists with camera/video trap data to reidentify individuals that exit and re‐enter the camera frame. Our expectation is that this is just the beginning of a major trend that could stand to revolutionize the analysis of camera trap data and, ultimately, our approach to animal ecology.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.262 · 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