MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From crowd to herd counting: How to precisely detect and count African mammals using aerial imagery and deep learning?

2023· article· en· W4319456044 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Delplanque, Samuel Foucher, Jérôme Théau, Elsa Bussière, Cédric Vermeulen, Philippe Lejeune

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’AgricultureFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSEuropean Commission
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceGeographyOvisLivestockWildlifeComputer scienceDeep learningCartographyPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionForestryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid growth of human populations in sub-Saharan Africa has led to a simultaneous increase in the number of livestock, often leading to conflicts of use with wildlife in protected areas. To minimize these conflicts, and to meet both communities’ and conservation goals, it is therefore essential to monitor livestock density and their land use. This is usually done by conducting aerial surveys during which aerial images are taken for later counting. Although this approach appears to reduce counting bias, the manual processing of images is time-consuming. The use of dense convolutional neural networks (CNNs) has emerged as a very promising avenue for processing such datasets. However, typical CNN architectures have detection limits for dense herds and close-by animals. To tackle this problem, this study introduces a new point-based CNN architecture, HerdNet, inspired by crowd counting. It was optimized on challenging oblique aerial images containing herds of camels (Camelus dromedarius), donkeys (Equus asinus), sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus), acquired over heterogeneous arid landscapes of the Ennedi reserve (Chad). This approach was compared to an anchor-based architecture, Faster-RCNN, and a density-based, adapted version of DLA-34 that is typically used in crowd counting. HerdNet achieved a global F1 score of 73.6 % on 24 megapixels images, with a root mean square error of 9.8 animals and at a processing speed of 3.6 s, outperforming the two baselines in terms of localization, counting and speed. It showed better proximity-invariant precision while maintaining equivalent recall to that of Faster-RCNN, thus demonstrating that it is the most suitable approach for detecting and counting large mammals at close range. The only limitation of HerdNet was the slightly weaker identification of species, with an average confusion rate approximately 4 % higher than that of Faster-RCNN. This study provides a new CNN architecture that could be used to develop an automatic livestock counting tool in aerial imagery. The reduced image analysis time could motivate more frequent flights, thus allowing a much finer monitoring of livestock and their land use.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations42
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote SensingSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207