A user‐friendly method to get automated pollen analysis from environmental samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated pollen analysis is not yet efficient on environmental samples containing many pollen taxa and debris, which are typical in most pollen-based studies. Contrary to classification, detection remains overlooked although it is the first step from which errors can propagate. Here, we investigated a simple but efficient method to automate pollen detection for environmental samples, optimizing workload and performance. We applied the YOLOv5 algorithm on samples containing debris and c. 40 Mediterranean plant taxa, designed and tested several strategies for annotation, and analyzed variation in detection errors. About 5% of pollen grains were left undetected, while 5% of debris were falsely detected as pollen. Undetected pollen was mainly in poor-quality images, or of rare and irregular morphology. Pollen detection remained effective when applied to samples never seen by the algorithm, and was not improved by spending time to provide taxonomic details. Pollen detection of a single model taxon reduced annotation workload, but was only efficient for morphologically differentiated taxa. We offer guidelines to plant scientists to analyze automatically any pollen sample, providing sound criteria to apply for detection while using common and user-friendly tools. Our method contributes to enhance the efficiency and replicability of pollen-based studies.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.019 | 0.011 |
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".