Automatic detection for bioacoustic research: a practical guide from and for biologists and computer scientists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have seen a dramatic rise in the use of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) for biological and ecological applications, and a corresponding increase in the volume of data generated. However, data sets are often becoming so sizable that analysing them manually is increasingly burdensome and unrealistic. Fortunately, we have also seen a corresponding rise in computing power and the capability of machine learning algorithms, which offer the possibility of performing some of the analysis required for PAM automatically. Nonetheless, the field of automatic detection of acoustic events is still in its infancy in biology and ecology. In this review, we examine the trends in bioacoustic PAM applications, and their implications for the burgeoning amount of data that needs to be analysed. We explore the different methods of machine learning and other tools for scanning, analysing, and extracting acoustic events automatically from large volumes of recordings. We then provide a step-by-step practical guide for using automatic detection in bioacoustics. One of the biggest challenges for the greater use of automatic detection in bioacoustics is that there is often a gulf in expertise between the biological sciences and the field of machine learning and computer science. Therefore, this review first presents an overview of the requirements for automatic detection in bioacoustics, intended to familiarise those from a computer science background with the needs of the bioacoustics community, followed by an introduction to the key elements of machine learning and artificial intelligence that a biologist needs to understand to incorporate automatic detection into their research. We then provide a practical guide to building an automatic detection pipeline for bioacoustic data, and conclude with a discussion of possible future directions in this field.
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.031 |
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".