ArticlePeerJ2018
Species identification by conservation practitioners using online images: accuracy and agreement between experts.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Linking camera-trap data to taxonomy: Identifying photographs of morphologically similar chipmunks.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Assessment of volunteered geographic information for vegetation mapping.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2020Article
- Sharing for science: high-resolution trophic interactions revealed rapidly by social media.PeerJ · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Error rates in wildlife image classification.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- Use of Machine Learning to Detect Wildlife Product Promotion and Sales on Twitter.Frontiers in big data · 2019Article
- Article
- Use-inspired basic research on individual differences in face identification: implications for criminal investigation and security.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emerging technologies have led to an increase in species observations being recorded via digital images. Such visual records are easily shared, and are often uploaded to online communities when help is required to identify or validate species. Although this is common practice, little is known about the accuracy of species identification from such images. Using online images of newts that are native and non-native to the UK, this study asked holders of great crested newt (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.