2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108696
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A machine learning framework to classify Southeast Asian echolocating bats

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results from the cross‐validation reported near‐perfect specificity across all species (>0.9), and this can be especially problematic for elusive or harder to identify species (Rojas et al, 2019). Metrics such as specificity highlight the certainty of true negatives, and this can be unreliable in multicategory classifications (López‐Baucells et al, 2019; Yoh et al, 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results from the cross‐validation reported near‐perfect specificity across all species (>0.9), and this can be especially problematic for elusive or harder to identify species (Rojas et al, 2019). Metrics such as specificity highlight the certainty of true negatives, and this can be unreliable in multicategory classifications (López‐Baucells et al, 2019; Yoh et al, 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Secondly, we measured classification success for each species by comparing the manual identification (Dataset 4), against the automatic identification assigned by each classifier. We hypothesized that manual identification provided the most conservative species identifications, which we used to assign true (correct automatic identification) or false positive (failed automated identification) to the final predictions (Barré et al, 2019; López‐Baucells et al, 2019; Yoh et al, 2022). From these, we could predict the confidence score corresponding to a given success probability of the automated identification.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For those species we could not find any reference calls, we used the reference calls available in the bat call library Chirovox (Görföl et al, 2022). We therefore matched the call type of the species present in peninsular Malaysia to one of the sonotypes described in Yoh et al (2022) for bat species in Malaysian Borneo, namely CF, FM, FMqCF1, FMqCF2, FMqCF3, FMqCF4, FMqCF5, QCF and LF sonotypes. Using start and end frequency, frequency of maximum energy, duration and interpulse interval as defined in Russo and Jones (2002), we classified the calls into one of these nine sonotypes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the shape of the echolocation calls reflects the physical constraints encountered by the bats, we were able to classify bat sonotypes into three foraging guilds: (1) the constant-frequency and FM calls represent forest foragers, (2) FMqCF4, FMqCF5 and QCF represent edge foragers, and (3) LF, FMqCF2 and FMqCF3 calls represent open-space foragers (Yoh et al, 2022). Social calls could not be identified to the sonotype level and were treated as assemblage-level activity.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation