ArticleScientific reports2024
Man versus machine: cost and carbon emission savings of 4G-connected Artificial Intelligence technology for classifying species in camera trap images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Timely and accurate detection and identification of species are crucial for monitoring wildlife for conservation and management. Technological advances, including connectivity of camera traps to mobile phone networks and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for automated species identification, can potentially improve the timeliness and accuracy of species detection and identification. Adoption of this new technology, however, is often seen as cost-prohibitive as it has been difficult to calculate the cost savings or qualitative benefits over the life of the program. We developed a decision tool to quantify potential cost savings associated with incorporating the use of mobile phone network connectivity and AI technologies into monitoring programs. Using a feral cat eradication program as a case study, we used our decision tool to quantify technology-related savings in costs and carbon emissions, and compared the accuracy of AI species identification to that of experienced human observers. Over the life of the program, AI technology yielded cost savings of $0.27 M and when coupled with mobile phone network connectivity, AI saved $2.15 M and 115,838 kg in carbon emissions, with AI algorithms outperforming human observers in both speed and accuracy. Our case study demonstrates how advanced technologies can improve accuracy and cost-effectiveness and improve monitoring program efficiencies.
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.