MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300356472 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.2026

Automated annotation of corals in natural scene images using multiple texture representations

2016· preprint· en· W4300356472 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Nicola Blanchet, Sébastien Déry, Jacques-André Landry, Kate Osborne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAnnotationFeature (linguistics)Local binary patternsPattern recognition (psychology)Image retrievalAutomatic image annotationConvolutional neural networkFeature extractionSupport vector machineHistogramComputer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current coral reef health monitoring programs rely on biodiversity data obtained through the acquisition and annotation of underwater photographs. Manual annotation of these photographs is a necessary step, but has become problematic due to the high volume of images and the high cost of human resources. While automated and reliable multi-spectral annotation methods exist, coral reef images are often limited to visible light, which makes automation difficult. Much of the previous work has focused on popular texture recognition methods, but the results remain unsatisfactory when compared to human performance for the same task. In this work, we present an improved automatic method for coral image annotation that yields consistent accuracy improvements over existing methods. Our method builds on previous work by combining multiple feature representations. We demonstrate that the aggregation of multiple methods outperforms any single method. Furthermore, our proposed system requires virtually no parameter tuning, and supports rejection for improved results. Firstly, the complex texture diversity of corals is handled by combining multiple feature representations: local binary patterns, hue and opponent angle histograms, textons, and deep convolutional activation feature. Secondly, these multiple representations are aggregated using a score-level fusion of multiple support vector machines. Thirdly, rejection can optionally be applied to enhance classification results, and allows efficient semi-supervised image annotation in collaboration with human experts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207