BattyCoda: A novel open-source software for bat call annotation and classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of acoustic communication needs tools that facilitate the annotation and labeling of animal calls. Bat acoustic libraries gathered over the past few decades have primarily focused on compiling echolocation calls, which have been leveraged to develop machine learning algorithms capable of classifying bat species. However, because these classification methods require large training datasets, they have not yet been generalized to classify types of bat communication calls. Communication call repertoires in bats are wide, and distinct syllables occur with varying frequency, with some call types being recorded only rarely. Furthermore, collecting communication calls poses greater technical challenges, making these calls more difficult to capture reliably. Here, we present BattyCoda, an open-access, customizable tool to categorize and label bat communication call types within the repertoire of a species using small training datasets (tens to hundreds of labeled calls). In this work, we compiled an initial training dataset of 11 types of big brown bat ( Eptesicus fuscus ) calls, tested the performance of various candidate classifiers, and assessed the final classifier's training sample size sensitivity. We found that the best performing classifier achieved a balanced accuracy of ~50 %, with common call types achieving classification accuracies over 70 %. Our tool can greatly facilitate annotating bat calls in recordings by providing accurate labels for common call types, while also assisting researchers in categorizing rarer communication calls. BattyCoda has the potential to build research capacity in the field of acoustic communication by expanding the availability of libraries including a wider range of bat calls and species, thereby enabling the exploration of new hypotheses.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
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".