Developing a classification system to assign activity states to two species of freshwater turtles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in ecology often requires robust assessment of animal behaviour, but classifying behavioural patterns in free-ranging animals and in natural environments can be especially challenging. New miniaturised bio-logging devices such as accelerometers are increasingly available to record animal behaviour remotely, and thereby address the gap in knowledge related to behaviour of free-ranging animals. However, validation of these data is rarely conducted and classification model transferability across closely-related species is often not tested. Here, we validated accelerometer and water sensor data to classify activity states in two free-ranging freshwater turtle species (Blanding's turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, and Painted turtle, Chrysemys picta). First, using only accelerometer data, we developed a decision tree to separate motion from motionless states, and second, we included water sensor data to classify the animal as being motionless or in-motion on land or in water. We found that accelerometers separated in-motion from motionless behaviour with > 83% accuracy, whereas models also including water sensor data predicted states in terrestrial and aquatic locations with > 77% accuracy. Despite differences in values separating activity states between the two species, we found high model transferability allowing cross-species application of classification models. Note that reducing sampling frequency did not affect predictive accuracy of our models up to a sampling frequency of 0.0625 Hz. We conclude that the use of accelerometers in animal research is promising, but requires prior data validation and development of robust classification models, and whenever possible cross-species assessment should be conducted to establish model generalisability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".