MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118492239 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13548

Automated classification of avian vocal activity using acoustic indices in regional and heterogeneous datasets

2021· article· en· W3118492239 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel A. Yip, C. Lisa Mahon, Alexander G. MacPhail, Erin M. Bayne

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsYukon Department of EnvironmentUniversity of AlbertaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute
KeywordsData collectionComputer scienceCluster analysisSample (material)Sample size determinationVariation (astronomy)Identification (biology)Scale (ratio)Data miningGeographyMachine learningEcologyStatisticsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Acoustic indices combined with clustering and classification approaches have been increasingly used to automate identification of the presence of vocalizing taxa or acoustic events of interest. While most studies using this approach standardize data collection and study design parameters at the project or study level, recent trends in ecological research are to investigate patterns at regional or continental scales. Large‐scale studies often require collaboration between research groups and integration of data from multiple sources to fulfil objectives, which can lead to variation in recording equipment and data collection protocols. Our objectives were to determine how analytical approaches and variation in data collection and processing that is typical of regional acoustic monitoring programmes influences accuracy when identifying vocal activity in breeding birds. We used data from three regional datasets in Northern Alberta, Northern British Columbia, and Southern and Central Yukon, Canada to investigate the effect of analytical framework, sample size, local species richness and data collection variables on classification accuracy. We found supervised classification approaches to be the most effective, with boosted regression trees identifying vocalizations of breeding birds in audio recordings with a 92.0% accuracy and easily able to accommodate variation in data collection and processing parameters. We also provide recommendations on effectively processing large and heterogeneous datasets including sufficient sample size, accommodating potentially confounding variables and selecting suitable model training data. The results presented in this study can help inform decisions in data collection, data processing, and study design and analysis, maximize performance and accuracy during analysis, and efficiently process large, heterogeneous acoustic datasets to answer questions at scales previously difficult to investigate.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207