MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217550460 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsab233

Automatic discard registration in cluttered environments using deep learning and object tracking: class imbalance, occlusion, and a comparison to human review

2021· article· en· W3217550460 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rick van Essen, Angelo Mencarelli, Aloysius van Helmond, Linh Nguyen, Jurgen Batsleer, Jan Jaap Poos, Gert Kootstra

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Maritime and Fisheries FundMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionObject (grammar)Fish <Actinopterygii>Pattern recognition (psychology)Tracking (education)DorsumArtificial neural networkFisheryAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents and evaluates a method for detecting and counting demersal fish species in complex, cluttered, and occluded environments that can be installed on the conveyor belts of fishing vessels. Fishes on the conveyor belt were recorded using a colour camera and were detected using a deep neural network. To improve the detection, synthetic data were generated for rare fish species. The fishes were tracked over the consecutive images using a multi-object tracking algorithm, and based on multiple observations, the fish species was determined. The effect of the synthetic data, the amount of occlusion, and the observed dorsal or ventral fish side were investigated and a comparison with human electronic monitoring (EM) review was made. Using the presented method, a weighted counting error of 20% was achieved, compared to a counting error of 7% for human EM review on the same recordings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207