Comparison of Fully Automated and Semi-Automated Methods for Species Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of manual species identification is a daunting task, so much so that the number of taxonomists is seen to be declining. In order to assist taxonomists, many methods and algorithms have been proposed to develop semi-automated and fully automated systems for species identification. While semi-automated tools would require manual intervention by a domain expert, fully automated tools are assumed to be not as reliable as manual or semiautomated identification tools. Hence, in this study we investigate the accuracy of fully automated and semi-automated models for species identification. We have built fully automated and semi-automated species classification models using the monogenean species image dataset. With respect to monogeneans' morphology, they are differentiated based on the morphological characteristics of haptoral bars, anchors, marginal hooks and reproductive organs (male and female copulatory organs). Landmarks (in the semi-automated model) and shape morphometric features (in the fully automated model) were extracted from four monogenean species images, which were then classified using k-nearest neighbour and artificial neural network. In semi-automated models, a classification accuracy of 96.67 % was obtained using the k-nearest neighbour and 97.5 % using the artificial neural network, whereas in fully automated models, a classification accuracy of 90 % was obtained using the k-nearest neighbour and 98.8 % using the artificial neural network. As for the crossvalidation, semi-automated models performed at 91.2 %, whereas fully automated models performed slightly higher at 93.75 %.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".