The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images
Open accessAbstract
Citizen science has the potential to expand the scope and scale of research in ecology and conservation, but many professional researchers remain skeptical of data produced by nonexperts. We devised an approach for producing accurate, reliable data from untrained, nonexpert volunteers. On the citizen science website www.snapshotserengeti.org , more than 28,000 volunteers classified 1.51 million images taken in a large‐scale camera‐trap survey in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Each image was circulated to, on average, 27 volunteers, and their classifications were aggregated using a simple plurality algorithm. We validated the aggregated answers against a data set of 3829 images verified by experts and calculated 3 certainty metrics—level of agreement among classifications (evenness), fraction of classifications supporting the aggregated answer (fraction support), and fraction of classifiers who reported “nothing here” for an image that was ultimately classified as containing an animal (fraction blank)—to measure confidence that an aggregated answer was correct. Overall, aggregated volunteer answers agreed with the expert‐verified data on 98% of images, but accuracy differed by species commonness such that rare species had higher rates of false positives and false negatives. Easily calculated analysis of variance and post‐hoc Tukey tests indicated that the certainty metrics were significant indicators of whether each image was correctly classified or classifiable. Thus, the certainty metrics can be used to identify images for expert review. Bootstrapping analyses further indicated that 90% of images were correctly classified with just 5 volunteers per image. Species classifications based on the plurality vote of multiple citizen scientists can provide a reliable foundation for large‐scale monitoring of African wildlife.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., Land, K., Bamford, S., Thomas, D., Raddick, M. J., Nichol, R. C., Szalay, A., Andreescu, D., et al. (2008) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13689.x · Cited by 1,488
Self-citationSpace Warps – I. Crowdsourcing the discovery of gravitational lenses
Marshall, P. J., Verma, A., More, A., Davis, C. P., More, S., Kapadia, A., Parrish, M., Snyder, C., Wilcox, J., Baeten, E., et al. (2016) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2009 · Cited by 117
Self-citation
Cited by
Norouzzadeh, M. S., Nguyen, A., Kosmala, M., Swanson, A., Palmer, M. S., Packer, C., & Clune, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1719367115 · Cited by 1,230
Self-citationMachine learning to classify animal species in camera trap images: Applications in ecology
Tabak, M. A., Norouzzadeh, M. S., Wolfson, D. W., Sweeney, S. J., Vercauteren, K. C., Snow, N. P., Halseth, J. M., Di Salvo, P. A., Lewis, J. S., White, M. D., et al. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13120 · Cited by 504
Bat detective—Deep learning tools for bat acoustic signal detection
Mac Aodha, O., Gibb, R., Barlow, K. E., Browning, E., Firman, M., Freeman, R., Harder, B., Kinsey, L., Mead, G. R., Newson, S. E., et al. (2018) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005995 · Cited by 216
A comprehensive assessment of stream fragmentation in Great Britain
Jones, J., Börger, L., Tummers, J., Jones, P., Lucas, M., Kerr, J., Kemp, P., Bizzi, S., Consuegra, S., Marcello, L., et al. (2019) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.125 · Cited by 125
“…et al., 2014), modelling (Januchowski-Hartley et al., 2013; Kroon and Phillips, 2016) and volunteers in the field (Ellwood et al., 2017; Swanson et al., 2016) through a smart phone application (https://portal.amber.international/, accessed: 25/01/2019), could be used to bridge data…”
BackgroundMethodTorney, C. J., Lloyd‐Jones, D. J., Chevallier, M., Moyer, D. C., Maliti, H. T., Mwita, M., Kohi, E. M., & Hopcraft, G. C. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13165 · Cited by 110
Palmer, M. S., Huebner, S. E., Willi, M., Fortson, L., & Packer, C. (2021) · Human Computation · doi:10.15346/hc.v8i2.123 · Cited by 20
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C., & Packer, C.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-04-25
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 520-531
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2344337985
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.