MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011301218 · doi:10.1101/2020.03.18.997700

Improving the accessibility and transferability of machine learning algorithms for identification of animals in camera trap images: MLWIC2

2020· preprint· en· W3011301218 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael A. Tabak, Mohammad Sadegh Norouzzadeh, David W. Wolfson, Erica J. Newton, Raoul K. Boughton, Jacob S. Ivan, Eric A. Odell, Eric S. Newkirk, Reesa Yale Conrey, Jennifer L. Stenglein, Fabiola Iannarilli, John D. Erb, Ryan K. Brook, Amy J. Davis, Jesse S. Lewis, Daniel P. Walsh, James C. Beasley, Kurt C. VerCauteren, Jeff Clune, Ryan S. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersRocky Mountain Research StationNational Wildlife Research CenterUniversity of Georgia Research FoundationCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesWashington Department of Fish and WildlifeIdaho Department of Fish and GameUniversity of GeorgiaU.S. Forest ServiceMassachusetts Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsTransferabilityTrap (plumbing)Identification (biology)Camera trapComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer visionMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)GeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motion-activated wildlife cameras (or “camera traps”) are frequently used to remotely and non-invasively observe animals. The vast number of images collected from camera trap projects have prompted some biologists to employ machine learning algorithms to automatically recognize species in these images, or at least filter-out images that do not contain animals. These approaches are often limited by model transferability, as a model trained to recognize species from one location might not work as well for the same species in different locations. Furthermore, these methods often require advanced computational skills, making them inaccessible to many biologists. We used 3 million camera trap images from 18 studies in 10 states across the United States of America to train two deep neural networks, one that recognizes 58 species, the “species model,” and one that determines if an image is empty or if it contains an animal, the “empty-animal model.” Our species model and empty-animal model had accuracies of 96.8% and 97.3%, respectively. Furthermore, the models performed well on some out-of-sample datasets, as the species model had 91% accuracy on species from Canada (accuracy range 36-91% across all out-of-sample datasets) and the empty-animal model achieved an accuracy of 91-94% on out-of-sample datasets from different continents. Our software addresses some of the limitations of using machine learning to classify images from camera traps. By including many species from several locations, our species model is potentially applicable to many camera trap studies in North America. We also found that our empty-animal model can facilitate removal of images without animals globally. We provide the trained models in an R package ( mlwic 2: Machine Learning for Wildlife Image Classification in R), which contains Shiny Applications that allow scientists with minimal programming experience to use trained models and train new models in six neural network architectures with varying depths.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207