2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.pocean.2020.102436
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Three-dimensional cross-shelf zooplankton distributions off the Central Oregon Coast during anomalous oceanographic conditions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For in-situ plankton imaging systems, classification algorithms do not account for shifting class distributions across samples, false positive rates acquired during model training, and because most plankton studies aim to estimate total group abundance across observations in space, or through time, the learning problem then becomes at the level of the sample, not the individual image [ 35 ]. Although any classifiers false positives can be corrected for (e.g., [ 86 ]), a generalizable classifier would contain robust sample-level error, not at the taxon level [ 35 ]. The features learned by CNNs for classification, similar to those described here, can be used for plankton quantification.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For in-situ plankton imaging systems, classification algorithms do not account for shifting class distributions across samples, false positive rates acquired during model training, and because most plankton studies aim to estimate total group abundance across observations in space, or through time, the learning problem then becomes at the level of the sample, not the individual image [ 35 ]. Although any classifiers false positives can be corrected for (e.g., [ 86 ]), a generalizable classifier would contain robust sample-level error, not at the taxon level [ 35 ]. The features learned by CNNs for classification, similar to those described here, can be used for plankton quantification.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of YOLOv2, the recognition rate Figure 10i,j show the classification performances of YOLOv2 and the proposed method, respectively, for each frame. If the CNN or YOLO network recognizes the images in frame 1 to frame 8 as Common carp, and fails to recognize the images in frames 11,12,15,16,17,25, and 26 as fish, the fish species is recognized incorrectly. The proposed method has a low probability after frame 21, but is correctly recognized as Bluegill.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many methods have been proposed based on the principles of CNN, and their performance has been demonstrated in various fields [7][8][9][10]. However, some studies in the field have been conducted using CNN [11][12][13][14]. The issue of image classification began in AlexNet [8] and further research has been carried out in GoogLeNet and VGGNet [15,16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These processing techniques are all very similar, implementing some form of supervised learning-training an algorithm on a curated set of labeled images, evaluating using an independent subset, and then applying the algorithm incoming data. In the past 5 yr, virtually all plankton image classification schemes have adopted a flavor of deep learning (Luo et al 2018;Ellen et al 2019;Briseño-Avena et al 2020). These methods are quite accurate when evaluated using a random subset of the training data, typically achieving accuracies around 90%.…”
Section: Automated Analysis Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%