Petal to the metal: The slow road to automating large-scale phenology labeling for herbarium specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Herbarium specimens represent critical historical records of plant phenology, yet automating annotation of reproductive structures remains challenging given the diversity of floral morphologies, specimen age and quality, and image quality. Here, we present a machine learning pipeline that uses an ensemble modeling approach to detect flowers on herbarium specimens and deliver these data to the phenology research community. After testing multiple strategies for generating training data, we found in-house expert-curated annotations were essential for producing reliable results. Expert validation found relatively strong accuracy for detecting present floral structures, but still had moderately high false negative rates. Applying the ensemble to our filtered final image dataset of 22 million records resulted in 11.1 million records labeled with flowers present. However, only 2.9 million of these contained complete metadata necessary for downstream phenology research, highlighting the need for full label digitization efforts. Still, this dataset represents a large compilation of historical herbarium-derived phenology records available as a resource for the phenology community. We end by demonstrating how integrating these machine-labeled records into Phenobase, a publicly-available phenology database, expands taxonomic and temporal coverage for large-scale phenological analyses, and discuss remaining challenges and next steps.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
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".