Walruses from space: walrus counts in simultaneous remotely piloted aircraft system versus very high‐resolution satellite imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Regular counts of walruses (Odobenus rosmarus) across their pan‐Arctic range are necessary to determine accurate population trends and in turn understand how current rapid changes in their habitat, such as sea ice loss, are impacting them. However, surveying a region as vast and remote as the Arctic with vessels or aircraft is a formidable logistical challenge, limiting the frequency and spatial coverage of field surveys. An alternative methodology involving very high‐resolution (VHR) satellite imagery has proven to be a useful tool to detect walruses, but the feasibility of accurately counting individuals has not been addressed. Here, we compare walrus counts obtained from a VHR WorldView‐3 satellite image, with a simultaneous ground count obtained using a remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS). We estimated the accuracy of the walrus counts depending on (1) the spatial resolution of the VHR satellite imagery, providing the same WorldView‐3 image to assessors at three different spatial resolutions (i.e., 50, 30 and 15 cm per pixel) and (2) the level of expertise of the assessors (experts vs. a mixed level of experience – representative of citizen scientists). This latter aspect of the study is important to the efficiency and outcomes of the global assessment programme because there are citizen science campaigns inviting the public to count walruses in VHR satellite imagery. There were 73 walruses in our RPAS ‘control’ image. Our results show that walruses were under‐counted in VHR satellite imagery at all spatial resolutions and across all levels of assessor expertise. Counts from the VHR satellite imagery with 30 cm spatial resolution were the most accurate and least variable across levels of expertise. This was a successful first attempt at validating VHR counts with near‐simultaneous, in situ, data but further assessments are required for walrus aggregations with different densities and configurations, on different substrates.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".