Applications for deep learning in ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A lot of hype has recently been generated around deep learning, a novel group of artificial intelligence approaches able to break accuracy records in pattern recognition. Over the course of just a few years, deep learning has revolutionized several research fields such as bioinformatics and medicine with its flexibility and ability to process large and complex datasets. As ecological datasets are becoming larger and more complex, we believe these methods can be useful to ecologists as well. In this paper, we review existing implementations and show that deep learning has been used successfully to identify species, classify animal behaviour and estimate biodiversity in large datasets like camera‐trap images, audio recordings and videos. We demonstrate that deep learning can be beneficial to most ecological disciplines, including applied contexts, such as management and conservation. We also identify common questions about how and when to use deep learning, such as what are the steps required to create a deep learning network, which tools are available to help, and what are the requirements in terms of data and computer power. We provide guidelines, recommendations and useful resources, including a reference flowchart to help ecologists get started with deep learning. We argue that at a time when automatic monitoring of populations and ecosystems generates a vast amount of data that cannot be effectively processed by humans anymore, deep learning could become a powerful reference tool for ecologists.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".