MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3201230416 · doi:10.1101/2021.09.13.460161

Embracing imperfection: machine-assisted invertebrate classification in real-world datasets

2021· preprint· en· W3201230416 on OpenAlexafffund
Jarrett D. Blair, Michael D. Weiser, Kirsten M. de Beurs, Michael Kaspari, Cameron D. Siler, Katie E. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMetadataArtificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer scienceInvertebrateGradient boostingTaxonomic rankBoosting (machine learning)TaxonRandom forestEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite growing concerns over the health of global invertebrate diversity, terrestrial invertebrate monitoring efforts remain poorly geographically distributed. Machine-assisted classification has been proposed as a potential solution to quickly gather large amounts of data; however, previous studies have often used unrealistic or idealized datasets to train their models. In this study, we describe a practical methodology for including machine learning in ecological data acquisition pipelines. Here we train and test machine learning algorithms to classify over 56,000 bulk terrestrial invertebrate specimens from morphometric data and contextual metadata. All vouchered specimens were collected in pitfall traps by the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) at 27 locations across the United States in 2016. Specimens were photographed, and morphometric data was extracted as feature vectors using ImageJ. Issues stemming from inconsistent taxonomic label specificity were resolved by making classifications at the lowest identified taxonomic level (LITL). Taxa with too few specimens to be included in the training dataset were classified by the model using zero-shot classification. When classifying specimens that were known and seen by our models, we reached an accuracy of 72.7% using extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) at the LITL. Models that were trained without contextual metadata underperformed models with contextual metadata by an average of 7.2%. We also classified invertebrate taxa that were unknown to the model using zero-shot classification, with an accuracy of 39.4%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 71.5% across the entire NEON dataset. The general methodology outlined here represents a realistic application of machine learning as a tool for ecological studies. Hierarchical and LITL classifications allow for flexible taxonomic specificity at the input and output layers. These methods also help address the ‘long tail’ problem of underrepresented taxa missed by machine learning models. Finally, we encourage researchers to consider more than just morphometric data when training their models, as we have shown that the inclusion of contextual metadata can provide significant improvements to accuracy.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→