Figure 1
Zooniverse treatments for identifying wildlife images from camera traps. (i) The “No JITT” treatment includes the choices available on the right for identifying the animal, but no further assistance is provided. (ii) The “JITT” treatment includes tutorials to assist the user in identifications. Shown is what the participant would see if they selected the “Like” button, which displays the morphology choices. The “Color” and “Pattern” filters are also available to the participant with the “JITT” treatment, displaying the animals’ possible colors and coat patterns, respectively. In addition to these three categories, each animal choice has a photo associated with it, as well as a short description once that animal is selected.
Figure 2
Accuracy of identifications (proportion of photos correctly identified) based on biology background of participants and training received. This boxplot displays the median and interquartile range for each category of biology background and treatment type (n = 91). Volunteers with no biology background were able to provide identifications that were as accurate as volunteers with biology backgrounds when training was provided but were less accurate when no training was provided (ANOVA Background by Treatment Interaction: F-ratio = 7.61, df = 2, p = 0.00091). Letters denote significance (Tukey-Kramer: p ≤ 0.01).
Table 1
ANOVA results comparing mean accuracy of photo identifications across participants based on biology background of participants and amount of training received.
| Term | DF | SS | F-ratio | P-value | η2 | 95%CI Lwr | 95%CI Upr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Background | 2 | 0.29 | 5.76 | 0.0045 | 0.09 | –0.03 | 0.25 |
| Training | 1 | 0.43 | 16.87 | 9.00E-05 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.24 |
| Background*Training | 2 | 0.39 | 7.61 | 0.00091 | 0.12 | 0.01 | 0.24 |
| Residuals | 85 | 2.15 | – | – | – | – | – |
[i] Participants self-identified their background in biology as either “No Background,” “Some Background,” or “Professional Biologist.” Participants received either the treatment with no training or were provided with just-in-time training (JITT). Significant values are italicized. For each term in the model, the following are reported: degrees of freedom (DF), sum of squares (SS), F-ratio, P-value, eta-squared (η2), and the lower and upper 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Table 2
Tukey-Kramer Honestly Significant Difference results comparing differences in mean accuracy between treatment groups.
| Comparison | Difference | 95%CI lwr | 95%CI upr | Adj P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Some–None | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.021519 |
| Biologist–None | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.000558 |
| Biologist–Some | 0.04 | –0.03 | 0.12 | 0.344381 |
| JITT–No JITT | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.16 | 0.00019 |
| Some*No JITT–None*No JITT | 0.23 | 0.09 | 0.37 | 0.000144 |
| Biologist*No JITT–None*No JITT | 0.26 | 0.12 | 0.39 | 4.00E-06 |
| None*JITT–None*No JITT | 0.30 | 0.14 | 0.46 | 4.00E-06 |
| Some*JITT–None*No JITT | 0.25 | 0.11 | 0.38 | 2.40E-05 |
| Biologist*JITT–None*No JITT | 0.33 | 0.17 | 0.49 | 1.00E-06 |
| Biologist*No JITT–Some*No JITT | 0.03 | –0.09 | 0.15 | 0.980451 |
| None*JITT–Some*No JITT | 0.07 | –0.07 | 0.22 | 0.702743 |
| Some*JITT–Some*No JITT | 0.02 | –0.11 | 0.14 | 0.998839 |
| Biologist*JITT–Some*No JITT | 0.10 | –0.05 | 0.25 | 0.339966 |
| None*JITT–Biologist*No JITT | 0.04 | –0.10 | 0.18 | 0.948098 |
| Some*JITT–Biologist*No JITT | –0.01 | –0.13 | 0.11 | 0.999552 |
| Biologist*JITT–Biologist*No JITT | 0.07 | –0.07 | 0.22 | 0.658372 |
| Some*JITT–None*JITT | –0.06 | –0.20 | 0.09 | 0.867683 |
| Biologist*JITT–None*JITT | 0.03 | –0.13 | 0.20 | 0.992882 |
| Biologist*JITT–Some*JITT | 0.09 | –0.06 | 0.23 | 0.516319 |
[i] Participants self-identified their background in biology as either “No Background,” “Some Background,” or “Professional Biologist.” For each comparison, mean difference is shown with the lower and upper 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the adjusted P-value. Significant values are italicized.
Figure 3
Proportion of correct and incorrect identifications for participants with and without training. Incorrect identifications were split into three categories: 1) “Don’t Know” was assigned to pictures identified as having an organism but the participant was unsure of the species, 2) “Nothing Here” was assigned to pictures identified as having no organisms in them when in fact there were organisms present, and 3) “Wrong Species” was assigned to pictures identified with the wrong species. Results are shown for participants with varying backgrounds in biology (none, some, and professional) and for both treatments (just-in-time training [JITT] and no training).
Figure 4
Proportion of correct and incorrect identifications of wildlife photos for each species for participants with and without training. For each of the official identification categories, the proportion of correct and incorrect identifications are shown. Incorrect identifications were split into three categories: 1) “Don’t Know” was assigned to pictures identified as having an organism but the participant was unsure of the species; 2) “Nothing Here” was assigned to pictures identified as having no organisms in them when in fact there were organisms present; and 3) “Wrong Species” was assigned to pictures identified with the wrong species.