Detection and tracking of belugas, kayaks and motorized boats in drone video using deep learning
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
Aerial imagery surveys are commonly used in marine mammal research to determine population size, distribution and habitat use. Analysis of aerial photos involves hours of manually identifying individuals present in each image and converting raw counts into useable biological statistics. Our research proposes the use of deep learning algorithms to increase the efficiency of the marine mammal research workflow. To test the feasibility of this proposal, the existing YOLOv4 convolutional neural network model was trained to detect belugas, kayaks and motorized boats in oblique drone imagery, collected from a stationary tethered system. Automated computer-based object detection achieved the following precision and recall, respectively, for each class: beluga = 74%/72%; boat = 97%/99%; and kayak = 96%/96%. We then tested the performance of computer vision tracking of belugas and occupied watercraft in drone videos using the DeepSORT tracking algorithm, which achieved a multiple-object tracking accuracy (MOTA) ranging from 37% to 88% and multiple object tracking precision (MOTP) between 63% and 86%. Results from this research indicate that deep learning technology can detect and track features more consistently than human annotators, allowing for larger datasets to be processed within a fraction of the time while avoiding discrepancies introduced by labeling fatigue or multiple human annotators.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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