FoxMask: a new automated tool for animal detection in camera trap images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Camera traps now represent a reliable, efficient and cost-effective technique to monitor wildlife and collect biological data in the field. However, efficiently extracting information from the massive amount of images generated is often extremely time-consuming and may now represent the most rate-limiting step in camera trap studies. To help overcome this challenge, we developed FoxMask, a new tool performing the automatic detection of animal presence in short sequences of camera trap images. FoxMask uses background estimation and foreground segmentation algorithms to detect the presence of moving objects (most likely, animals) on images. We analyzed a sample dataset from camera traps used to monitor activity on arctic fox Vulpes lagopus dens to test the parameter settings and the performance of the algorithm. The shape and color of arctic foxes, their background at snowmelt and during the summer growing season were highly variable, thus offering challenging testing conditions. We compared the automated animal detection performed by FoxMask to a manual review of the image series. The performance analysis indicated that the proportion of images correctly classified by FoxMask as containing an animal or not was very high (> 90%). FoxMask is thus highly efficient at reducing the workload by eliminating most false triggers (images without an animal). We provide parameter recommendations to facilitate usage and we present the cases where the algorithm performs less efficiently to stimulate further development. FoxMask is an easy-to-use tool freely available to ecologists performing camera trap data extraction. By minimizing analytical time, computer-assisted image analysis will allow collection of increased sample sizes and testing of new biological questions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".