Visual spectrogram scanning paired with an observation–confirmation occupancy model improves the efficiency and accuracy of bioacoustic anuran data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passive acoustic monitoring using autonomous recording units has improved anuran amphibian call survey data collection. A challenge associated with this approach is the time required for audio data processing. Our objective was to develop a more efficient method of processing and analyzing acoustic data through visual spectrogram scanning and the application of an observation–confirmation occupancy model. We compared detection rates between methods of standard recording listening and visually scanning spectrogram images using different spectrogram parameters. Relative to listening, we found that 1 min spectrograms in two 30 s frames yield the best time efficiency–accuracy trade-off. A standard occupancy model applied to visual scanning data underestimated occupancy estimates relative to listening data for three species and overestimated occupancy for one species. The observation–confirmation model used a subset of listening data to improve the estimates of detection probability from visual scanning and therefore reduced bias in occupancy estimates when compared with using visual scanning data alone. Overall, the combination of the visual scanning method and the observation–confirmation model allowed us to maintain the accuracy of occupancy estimates while greatly increasing the efficiency of anuran data processing. These methods are widely applicable and can increase sample size and precision for acoustic monitoring programs using autonomous recording units.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".