MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390945514 · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.14042

A gentle introduction to computer vision‐based specimen classification in ecological datasets

2024· article· en· W4390945514 on OpenAlexafffund
Jarrett D. Blair, Kaitlyn M. Gaynor, Meredith S. Palmer, Katie E. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWorkflowComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)SoftwareLimitingData scienceEcologyData miningDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classifying specimens is a critical component of ecological research, biodiversity monitoring and conservation. However, manual classification can be prohibitively time-consuming and expensive, limiting how much data a project can afford to process. Computer vision, a form of machine learning, can help overcome these problems by rapidly, automatically and accurately classifying images of specimens. Given the diversity of animal species and contexts in which images are captured, there is no universal classifier for all species and use cases. As such, ecologists often need to train their own models. While numerous software programs exist to support this process, ecologists need a fundamental understanding of how computer vision works to select appropriate model workflows based on their specific use case, data types, computing resources and desired performance capabilities. Ecologists may also face characteristic quirks of ecological datasets, such as long-tail distributions, 'unknown' species, similarity between species and polymorphism within species, which impact the efficacy of computer vision. Despite growing interest in computer vision for ecology, there are few resources available to help ecologists face the challenges they are likely to encounter. Here, we present a gentle introduction for species classification using computer vision. In this manuscript and associated GitHub repository, we demonstrate how to prepare training data, basic model training procedures, and methods for model evaluation and selection. Throughout, we explore specific considerations ecologists should make when training classification models, such as data domains, feature extractors and class imbalances. With these basics, ecologists can adjust their workflows to achieve research goals and/or account for uncertainty in downstream analysis. Our goal is to provide guidance for ecologists for getting started in or improving their use of machine learning for visual classification tasks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.066

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207