MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411759485 · doi:10.1101/2025.06.26.661638

Automated identification of individual birds by song enables multi-year recapture from passive acoustic monitoring data

2025· preprint· en· W4411759485 on OpenAlexaff
Sam Lapp, R. Patrick Lyon, Tessa A. Rhinehart, Chapin Czarnecki, Lauren M. Chronister, Cameron J. Fiss, Jeffery L. Larkin, Erin M. Bayne, Justin Kitzes

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation
KeywordsMark and recaptureIdentification (biology)Computer scienceGeographySpeech recognitionEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Autonomous sensors and machine learning are transforming ecology by enabling large-scale observation of organisms and ecosystems. However, sensor data collected by camera traps, acoustic recorders, and satellites are typically used only to produce detections of unidentified individuals. Tracking individuals over time to study movement, survival, and behavior continues to require invasive and high-effort capture and marking techniques. Here, we introduce an automated, general approach that identifies individual animals from passive acoustic recordings based on individually distinctive vocalizations. Unlike previous approaches, ours can identify individuals in passive acoustic recordings without previously labeled examples of their vocalizations. We apply our approach to a model songbird species (Ovenbird, Seiurus aurocapilla ), estimating abundance and annual survival across 126 locations and four years. Our approach identifies individuals with 96% accuracy. We find high Ovenbird apparent annual survival (0.70) and acoustic recapture probability (0.89) across 405 individuals. Our approach can readily be applied to other species with individually distinctive vocalizations using open-source Python implementations. Automated individual identification will broadly unlock the ability to passively recapture individual animals at the massive scale of autonomous sensing, supporting the study of population trajectories and informing proactive ecosystem management to prevent biodiversity loss.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207