A comparison of manual and automated detection of rusa deer (Rusa timorensis) from RPAS-derived thermal imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context Monitoring is an essential part of managing invasive species; however, accurate, cost-effective detection techniques are necessary for it to be routinely undertaken. Current detection techniques for invasive deer are time consuming, expensive and have associated biases, which may be overcome by exploiting new technologies. Aims We assessed the accuracy and cost effectiveness of automated detection methods in comparison to manual detection of thermal footage of deer captured by remotely piloted aircraft systems. Methods Thermal footage captured by RPAS was assessed using an algorithm combining two object-detection techniques, namely, YOLO and Faster-RCNN. The number of deer found using manual review on each sampling day was compared with the number of deer found on each day using machine learning. Detection rates were compared across survey areas and sampling occasions. Key results Overall, there was no difference in the mean number of deer detected using manual and that detected by automated review (P = 0.057). The automated-detection algorithm identified between 66.7% and 100% of deer detected using manual review of thermal imagery on all but one of the sampling days. There was no difference in the mean proportion of deer detected using either manual or automated review at three repeated sampling events (P = 0.174). However, identifying deer using the automated review algorithm was 84% cheaper than the cost of manual review. Low cloud cover appeared to affect detectability using the automated review algorithm. Conclusions Automated methods provide a fast and effective way to detect deer. For maximum effectiveness, imagery that encompasses a range of environments should be used as part of the training dataset, as well as large groups for herding species. Adequate sensing conditions are essential to gain accurate counts of deer by automated detection. Implications Machine learning in combination with RPAS may decrease the cost and improve the detection and monitoring of invasive species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".