Early lessons in deploying cameras and artificial intelligence technology for fisheries catch monitoring: where machine learning meets commercial fishing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic monitoring (EM) is increasingly used to monitor catch and bycatch in wild capture fisheries. EM video data are still manually reviewed and adds to ongoing management costs. Computer vision, machine learning, and artificial intelligence-based systems are seen to be the next step in automating EM data workflows. Here we show some of the obstacles we have confronted and approaches taken as we develop a system to automatically identify and count target and bycatch species using cameras deployed to an industry vessel. A Convolutional Neural Network was trained to detect and classify target and bycatch species groups, and a visual tracking system was developed to produce counts. The multiclass detector achieved a mean average precision of 53.42%. Based on the detection results, the visual tracking system provided automatic fish counts for the test video data. Automatic counts were within two standard deviations of the manual counts for the target species and most times for the bycatch species. Unlike other recent attempts, weather and lighting conditions were largely controlled by mounting cameras under cover.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it