MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131093438 · doi:10.1109/iccvw69036.2025.00221

Refining Naive Annotations with Limited Expert Guidance for Semantic Segmentation: A Case Study on Underwater Echograms

2025· article· W7131093438 on OpenAlexafffund
Melissa Cote, Amanda Dash, Julek Chawarski, Alexandra Branzan Albu, Femina Bharatkumar Senjaliya, Andrea Niemi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaCanadian Water NetworkASL Environmental Sciences (Canada)University of Victoria
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsMetadataAnnotationGround truthContext (archaeology)Intersection (aeronautics)Artificial neural networkSegmentationConvolutional neural networkDomain (mathematical analysis)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Training models for supervised semantic segmentation typically requires large quantities of pixel-level annotations that are difficult to assemble in many application domains, in particular when metadata is scarce. In the context of underwater echogam analysis for environmental monitoring, metadata scarcity is manifested by a lack of ground truth and limited domain expert resources, hindering standard data annotation processes. We propose an iterative, non-interactive annotation approach that allows us to obtain large quantities of echogram annotations using minimal expert guidance. In a two-stage process, a segmentation neural network is first purposely overfitted to a very small expertly annotated set, and is then used to iteratively refine a larger set of rough, naive annotations. Experiments on the Cape Bathurst Arctic Sea Surface Acoustics (CBASSA) dataset showcase our method's capability to generate annotations for the sea surface and subsurface entrained air bubbles that approach expert quality level (within 5.5 p.p. for the intersection over union and 3 p.p. for the F1-score), starting from simple non-expert lines obtained at a fraction of the time required by experts. They also show that our method is compatible with both convolutional- and transformer-based neural networks, and pave the way for annotating large datasets resulting from long/continuous deployments for underwater environmental monitoring, at minimal cost.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207