ArticleScientific reports2022
Maximizing citizen scientists' contribution to automated species recognition.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anthropogenic accessibility and observer inequality dictate spatial biodiversity patterns in Malaysia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Exploring the landscape of automated species identification apps: Development, promise, and user appraisal.Bioscience · 2024Review
- Emerging technologies in citizen science and potential for insect monitoring.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Modelling heterogeneity in the classification process in multi-species distribution models can improve predictive performance.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- The power of citizen science to advance fungal conservation.Conservation lettersArticle
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
Technological advances and data availability have enabled artificial intelligence-driven tools that can increasingly successfully assist in identifying species from images. Especially within citizen science, an emerging source of information filling the knowledge gaps needed to solve the biodiversity crisis, such tools can allow participants to recognize and report more poorly known species. This can be an important tool in addressing the substantial taxonomic bias in biodiversity data, where broadly recognized, charismatic species are highly over-represented. Meanwhile, the recognition models are trained using the same biased data, so it is important to consider what additional images are needed to improve recognition models. In this study, we investigated how the amount of training data influenced the performance of species recognition models for various taxa. We utilized a large citizen science dataset collected in Norway, where images are added independently from identification. We demonstrate that while adding images of currently under-represented taxa will generally improve recognition models more, there are important deviations from this general pattern. Thus, a more focused prioritization of data collection beyond the basic paradigm that "more is better" is likely to significantly improve species recognition models and advance the representativeness of biodiversity data.
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.