The Importance of Context Awareness in Acoustics-Based Automated Beehive Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vital role of honeybees in pollination and their high rate of mortality in the last decade have raised concern among beekeepers and researchers alike. As such, robust and remote sensing of beehives has emerged as a potential tool to help monitor the health of honeybees. Over the last decade, several monitoring systems have been proposed, including those based on in-hive acoustics. Despite its popularity, existing audio-based systems do not take context into account (e.g., environmental noise factors), and thus the performance may be severely hampered when deployed. In this paper, we investigate the effect that three different environmental noise factors (i.e., nearby train rail squealing, beekeeper speech, and rain noise) can have on three acoustic features (i.e., spectrogram, mel frequency cepstral coefficients, and discrete wavelet coefficients) used in existing automated beehive monitoring systems. To this end, audio data were collected continuously over a period of three months (August, September, and October) in 2021 from 11 urban beehives located in downtown Montréal, Québec, Canada. A system based on these features and a convolutional neural network was developed to predict beehive strength, an indicator of the size of the colony. Results show the negative impact that environmental factors can have across all tested features, resulting in an increase of up to 355% in mean absolute prediction error when heavy rain was present.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".