Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 377

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated species identification: why not?

Open access
Gaston, Kevin J., O'Neill, Mark A.·2004·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Where possible, automation has been a common response of humankind to many activities that have to be repeated numerous times. The routine identification of specimens of previously described species has many of the characteristics of other activities that have been automated, and poses a major constraint on studies in many areas of both pure and applied biology. In this paper, we consider some of the reasons why automated species identification has not become widely employed, and whether it is a realistic option, addressing the notions that it is too difficult, too threatening, too different or too costly. Although recognizing that there are some very real technical obstacles yet to be overcome, we argue that progress in the development of automated species identification is extremely encouraging that such an approach has the potential to make a valuable contribution to reducing the burden of routine identifications. Vision and enterprise are perhaps more limiting at present than practical constraints on what might possibly be achieved.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2003.1442

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 377

Metadata

Authors
Gaston, K. J., & O'Neill, M. A.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2004-04-29
Volume
359
Issue
1444
Pages
655-667
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2116562978
Cited by
377
References
1
FWCI
9.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.