<i>NABat ML</i>: Utilizing deep learning to enable crowdsourced development of automated, scalable solutions for documenting North American bat populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bats play crucial ecological roles and provide valuable ecosystem services, yet many populations face serious threats from various ecological disturbances. The North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat) aims to use its technology infrastructure to assess status and trends of bat populations, while developing innovative and community‐driven conservation solutions. Here, we present NABat ML , an automated machine‐learning algorithm that improves the scalability and scientific transparency of NABat acoustic monitoring. This model combines signal processing techniques and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to detect and classify recorded bat echolocation calls. We developed our CNN model with internet‐based computing resources (‘cloud environment’), and trained it on >600,000 spectrogram images. We also incorporated species range maps to improve the robustness and accuracy of the model for future ‘unseen’ data. We evaluated model performance using a comprehensive, independent, holdout dataset. NABat ML successfully distinguished 31 classes (30 species and a noise class) with overall weighted‐average accuracy and precision rates of 92%, and ≥90% classification accuracy for 19 of the bat species. Using a single cloud‐environment computing instance, the entire model training process took <16 h. Synthesis and applications . Our convolutional neural network (CNN)‐based model, NABat ML , classifies 30 North American bat species using their recorded echolocation calls with an overall accuracy of 92%. In addition to providing highly accurate species‐level classification, NABat ML and its outputs are compatible with Bayesian and other statistical techniques for measuring uncertainty in classification. Our model is open‐source and reproducible, enabling future implementations as software on end‐user devices and cloud‐based web applications. These qualities make NABat ML highly suitable for applications ranging from grassroots community science initiatives to big‐data methods developed and implemented by researchers and professional practitioners. We believe the transparency and accessibility of NABat ML will encourage broad‐scale participation in bat monitoring, and enable development of innovative solutions needed to conserve North American bat 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".