Iannarilli, F. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2024

Perceived and observed biases within scientific communities: a case study in movement ecology

Who conducts biological research, where, and how the results are disseminated varies among geographies and identities. Identifying and documenting these forms of bias by research communities is a critical first step towards addressing them. We documented perceived and observed biases in movement ecology. Movement ecology is a rapidly expanding sub-discipline of biology, which is strongly underpinned by fieldwork and technology use. First, we surveyed attendees of an international conference, and discussed the results at the conference (comparing uninformed vs informed perceived bias). Although most researchers identified as bias-aware, only a subset of biases were discussed in conversation. Next, by considering author affiliations from publications in the journal Movement Ecology, we found among-country discrepancies between the country of the authors affiliation and study site location related to national economics. At the within-country scale, we found that race-gender identities of postgraduate biology researchers in the USA differed from national demographics. We discuss the role of potential specific causes for the emergence of bias in the sub-discipline, e.g. parachute-science or accessibility to fieldwork. Undertaking data-driven analysis of bias within research sub-disciplines can help identify specific barriers and first steps towards the inclusion of a greater diversity of participants in the scientific process.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2020

Improving the accessibility and transferability of machine learning algorithms for identification of animals in camera trap images: MLWIC2

O_LIMotion-activated wildlife cameras (or "camera traps") are frequently used to remotely and non-invasively observe animals. The vast number of images collected from camera trap projects have prompted some biologists to employ machine learning algorithms to automatically recognize species in these images, or at least filter-out images that do not contain animals. These approaches are often limited by model transferability, as a model trained to recognize species from one location might not work as well for the same species in different locations. Furthermore, these methods often require advanced computational skills, making them inaccessible to many biologists. C_LIO_LIWe used 3 million camera trap images from 18 studies in 10 states across the United States of America to train two deep neural networks, one that recognizes 58 species, the "species model," and one that determines if an image is empty or if it contains an animal, the "empty-animal model." C_LIO_LIOur species model and empty-animal model had accuracies of 96.8% and 97.3%, respectively. Furthermore, the models performed well on some out-of-sample datasets, as the species model had 91% accuracy on species from Canada (accuracy range 36-91% across all out-of-sample datasets) and the empty-animal model achieved an accuracy of 91-94% on out-of-sample datasets from different continents. C_LIO_LIOur software addresses some of the limitations of using machine learning to classify images from camera traps. By including many species from several locations, our species model is potentially applicable to many camera trap studies in North America. We also found that our empty-animal model can facilitate removal of images without animals globally. We provide the trained models in an R package (MLWIC2: Machine Learning for Wildlife Image Classification in R), which contains Shiny Applications that allow scientists with minimal programming experience to use trained models and train new models in six neural network architectures with varying depths. C_LI

ecology↗