Comparing detection accuracy of mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli) song by two deep-learning algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of autonomous recording units (ARUs) has become an increasingly popular and powerful method of data collection for biological monitoring in recent years. However, the large-scale recordings collected using these devices are often nearly impossible for human analysts to parse through, as they require copious amounts of time and resources. Automated recognition techniques have allowed for quick and efficient analysis of these recordings, and machine learning (ML) approaches, such as deep learning, have greatly improved recognition robustness and accuracy. We evaluated the performance of two deep-learning algorithms: 1. our own custom convolutional neural network (CNN) detector (specialist approach) and 2. BirdNET, a publicly available detector capable of identifying over 6,000 bird species (generalist approach). We used audio recordings of mountain chickadees (Poecile gambeli) collected from ARUs and directional microphones in the field as our test stimulus set, with our custom detector trained to identify mountain chickadee songs. Using confidence thresholds of 0.6 for both detectors, we found that our custom CNN detector yielded higher detection compared to BirdNET. Given both ML approaches are significantly faster than a human detector and the custom CNN detector is highly accurate, we hope that our findings encourage bioacoustics practitioners to develop custom solutions for targeted species identification, especially given the availability of open-source toolboxes such as Koogu.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".