MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6892116677 · doi:10.5061/dryad.nvx0k6f1t

Data from: Automating field based floral surveys with machine learning

2024· dataset· en· W6892116677 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkAbundance (ecology)SegmentationDroneField (mathematics)PollinatorTaxon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The abundance and diversity of flowering plant species are important indicators of pollinator habitat quality, but traditional field-based surveying techniques are time-intensive. Therefore, they are often biased due to under-sampling and are difficult to scale. Aerial photography was collected across ten sites located in and around Rouge National Urban Park, Toronto, Canada using a consumer-grade drone. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to semantically segment, or identify and categorize, pixel clusters which represent flowers in the collected aerial imagery. Specifically, flowers of the dominant taxa found in the depauperate fall flowering plant community were surveyed. This included yellow flowering Solidago spp., white Symphyotrichum ericoides/lanceolatum and purple Symphyotrichum novae-angliae. The CNN was trained using 930 m2 of manually annotated data, approximately 1% of the mapped landscape. The trained CNN was tested on 20% of the manually annotated data concealed during training. In addition, it was externally validated by comparing the predicted drone-derived floral abundance metrics (i.e., floral area (m2) and the number of floral segments) to the field-based count of floral units estimated for thirty-four 4 m2 plots. The CNN returned accurate multi-classification when evaluated against the testing data. It obtained a precision score of 0.769, a recall of 0.849 and an F1 score of 0.807. The automated floral abundance counting yielded estimates that were strongly correlated with field-based manual counting. In addition, flower segmentation using the trained CNN was time efficient. On average, it took roughly the same amount of time to segment the flowers occurring in an entire drone scene as it took to complete the abundance count of a single quadrat. However, the training process, particularly manual data annotation, was the most time-consuming component of the study. Overall, the analysis provided valuable insights into automated flower classification and abundance estimation using drone imagery and machine learning. The results demonstrate that these tools can be used to provide accurate and scalable estimates of pollinator habitat quality. Further research should consider diverse wildflower systems to develop the generalizability of the methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→