Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Evaluating Data Quality and Changes in Species Identification in a Citizen Science Bird Monitoring Project Cover

Evaluating Data Quality and Changes in Species Identification in a Citizen Science Bird Monitoring Project

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Volume 8 (2023): Issue 1
By: Cooper M. Farr,  Frances Ngo and  Bryant Olsen  
Open Access
|Jun 2023

References

  1. 1Ahrends, A, Rahbek, C, Bulling, MT, Burgess, ND, Platts, PJ, Lovett, JC, Kindemba, VW, Owen, N, Sallu, AN, Marshall, AR, Mhoro, BE, Fanning, E and Marchant, R. 2011. Conservation and the botanist effect. Biological Conservation, 144(1): 131–140. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.08.008
    Back to article
  2. 2Balázs, B, Mooney, P, Nováková, E, Bastin, L and Arsanjani, JJ. 2021. The Science of Citizen Science. In: Vohland, K, Land- Zandstra, A, Ceccaroni, L, Lemmens, R, Perello, J, Ponti, M, Samon, R and Wagenknecht, K, The Science of Citizen Science. Cham: Springer. pp. 139–197. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_8
    Back to article
  3. 3Becker-Klein, R, Peterman, K, Stylinski, C. 2016. Embedded Assessment as an Essential Method for Understanding Public Engagement in Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1): 8. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.15
    Back to article
  4. 4Bell, S, Marzano, M, Cent, J, Kobierska, H, Podjed, D, Vandzinskaite, D, Reinert, H, Armaitiene, A, Grodzińska-Jurczak, M and Muršič, R. 2008. What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 17: 3443–3454. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-008-9357-9
    Back to article
  5. 5Bird, TJ, Bates, AE, Lefcheck, JS, Hill, NA, Thomson, RJ, Edgar, GJ, Stuart-Smith, RD, Wotherspoon, S, Krkosek, M, Stuart-Smith, JF, Pecl, GT, Barrett, N and Frusher, S. 2014 Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biological Conservation, 173: 144–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.037
    Back to article
  6. 6Bloom, EH and Crowder, DW. 2020. Promoting Data Collection in Pollinator Citizen Science Projects. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 5(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.217
    Back to article
  7. 7Bock, CE and Root, TL. 1981. The Christmas Bird Count and Avian Ecology. Studies in Avian Biology, 6: 17–23.
    Back to article
  8. 8Bonney, R, Cooper, CB, Dickinson, J, Kelling, S, Phillips, T, Rosenberg, KV and Shirk, J. 2009. Citizen Science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11): 977–984. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9
    Back to article
  9. 9Bonter, DN and Greig, E. 2021. Over 30 Years of Standardized Bird Counts at Supplementary Feeding Stations in North America: A Citizen Science Data Report for Project FeederWatch. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 619682. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2021.619682
    Back to article
  10. 10Brown, ED and Williams, BK. 2019. The potential for citizen science to produce reliable and useful information in ecology. Conservation Biology, 33: 561–569. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13223
    Back to article
  11. 11Buckland, JF, Anderson, DR, Burnham, KP, Laake, TL, Borchers, DL and Thomas, L. 2001. Introduction to distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Back to article
  12. 12Burgess, HK, DeBey, LB, Froehlich, HE, Schmidt, N, Theobald, EJ, Ettinger, AK, HilleRisLambers, J, Tewksbury, J and Parrish, JK. 2017. The science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biological Conservation, 208: 113–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.014
    Back to article
  13. 13Callaghan, CT and Gawlik, DE. 2015. Efficacy of eBird data as an aid in conservation planning and monitoring. Journal of Field Ornithology, 86(4): 298–304. DOI: 10.1111/jofo.12121
    Back to article
  14. 14Callaghan, CT, Rowley, JJ, Cornwell, WK, Poore, AGB and Major, RE. 2019. Improving big citizen science data: Moving beyond haphazard sampling. PLoS Biology, 17(6): e3000357. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000357
    Back to article
  15. 15Connors, JP, Lei, S and Kelly, M. 2012. Citizen Science in the Age of Neogeography: Utilizing Volunteered Geographic Information for Environmental Monitoring Citizen Science in the Age of Neogeography: Utilizing Volunteered Geographic Information for Environmental Monitoring. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(6): 37–41. DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2011.627058
    Back to article
  16. 16Costa, H, Foody, GM, Jiménez, S and Silva, L. 2015. Impacts of Species Misidentification on Species Distribution Modeling with Presence-Only Data. International Journal of Geo-Information, 4(4): 2496–2518. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi4042496
    Back to article
  17. 17Cox, TE, Philippoff, J, Baumgartner, E and Smith, CM. 2012. Expert variability provides perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of citizen-driven intertidal monitoring program. Ecological Applications, 22(4): 1201–1212. DOI: 10.1890/11-1614.1
    Back to article
  18. 18Crall, A, Newman, G, Jarnevich, C, Stohlgren, T, Waller, D and Graham, J. 2010. Improving and integrating data on invasive species collected by citizen scientists. Biological Invasions, 12: 3419–3428. DOI: 10.1007/s10530-010-9740-9
    Back to article
  19. 19Crall, AW, Jordan, R, Holfelder, K, Newman, GJ, Graham, J and Waller, DM. 2013. The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6): 745–764. DOI: 10.1177/0963662511434894
    Back to article
  20. 20Danielsen, F, Jensen, PM, Burgess, ND, Altamirano, R, Alviola, PA, Andrianandrasana, H, Brashares, JS, Burton, AC, Coronado, I, Corpuz, N, Enghoff, M, Fjeldså, J, Funder, M, Holt, S, Hübertz, H, Jensen, AE, Lewis, R, Massao, J, Mendoza, MM, Ngaga, Y, Pipper, CB, Poulsen, MK, Rueda, RM, Sam, MK, Skielboe, T, Sørensen, M and Young, R. 2014. A multicountry assessment of tropical resource monitoring by local communities. BioScience, 64(3): 236–251. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biu001
    Back to article
  21. 21Day, G, Fuller, RA, Nichols, C and Dean, AJ. 2022. Characteristics of immersive citizen science experiences that drive conservation engagement. People and Nature, 4: 983–995. DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10332
    Back to article
  22. 22Dickinson, JL, Zuckerberg, B and Bonter, DN. 2010. Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41: 149–172. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636
    Back to article
  23. 23Gorleri, FC and Areta, JI. 2021. Misidentifications in citizen science bias the phenological estimates of two hard-to-identify Elaenia flycatchers. Ibis, 164: 13–26. DOI: 10.1111/ibi.12985
    Back to article
  24. 24Finn, PG, Udy, NS, Baltais, SJ, Price, K and Coles, L. 2010. Assessing the quality of seagrass data collected by community volunteers in Moreton Bay Marine Park, Australia. Environmental Conservation, 37(1): 83–89. DOI: 10.1017/S0376892910000251
    Back to article
  25. 25Follett, R and Strezov, V. 2015. An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns. PLOS ONE, 10(11): e0143687. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143687
    Back to article
  26. 26Forrester, G, Baily, P, Conetta, D, Forrester, L, Kintzing, E and Jarecki, L. 2015. Comparing monitoring data collected by volunteers and professionals shows that citizen scientists can detect long-term change on coral reefs. Journal for Nature Conservation, 24(C): 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2015.01.002
    Back to article
  27. 27Forrester, TD, Baker, M, Costello, R, Kays, R, Parsons, AW and McShea, WJ. 2017. Creating advocates for mammal conservation through citizen science. Biological Conservation, 208: 98–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.025
    Back to article
  28. 28Fraixedas, S, Linden, A, Piha, M, Cabeza, M, Gregory, R and Lehikoinen, A. 2020. A state-of-the-art review on birds as indicators of biodiversity: Advances, challenges, and future directions. Ecological Indicators, 118: 106728. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106728
    Back to article
  29. 29Freitag, A, Meyer, R and Whiteman, L. 2016. Strategies Employed by Citizen Science Programs to Increase the Credibility of Their Data. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1): 2. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.6
    Back to article
  30. 30Gazdic, M and Groom, Q. 2019. iNaturalist is an Unexploited Source of Plant-Insect Interaction Data. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, 3: e37303. DOI: 10.3897/biss.3.37303
    Back to article
  31. 31Genet, KS and Sargent, LG. 2003. Evaluation of methods and data quality from a volunteer-based amphibian call survey. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31(3): 703–714. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784590
    Back to article
  32. 32Gorleri, FC and Areta, JI. 2021. Misidentifications in citizen science bias the phenological estimates of two hard-to-identify Elaenia flycatchers. Ibis, 164: 13–26. DOI: 10.1111/ibi.12985
    Back to article
  33. 33Gorleri, FC, Jordan, EA, Roesler, I, Monteleone, D and Areta, JI. 2022. Using photographic records to quantify accuracy of bird identification in citizen science data. International Journal of Avian Science. DOI: 10.1111/ibi.13137
    Back to article
  34. 34Greenwood, JJ. 2007. Citizens, science and bird conservation. Journal of Ornithology, 148: 77–124. DOI: 10.1007/s10336-007-0239-9
    Back to article
  35. 35Hanni, DJ, White, CM, Van Lanen, NJ, Birek, JJ, Berven, JM and McLaren, MF. 2015. Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): Field protocol for spatially-balanced sampling of landbird populations. Unpublished report. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, Colorado, USA.
    Back to article
  36. 36Heinisch, B, Oswald, K, Weisspflug, M, Shuttleworth, S and Belknap, G. 2021. Citizen Humanities. In: Vohland, K, Land- Zandstra, A, Ceccaroni, L, Lemmens, R, Perello, J, Ponti, M, Samon, R and Wagenknecht, K (eds.) The Science of Citizen Science. Cham: Springer. pp. 97–118.
    Back to article
  37. 37Heller, EL, Kerr, KCR, Dahlan, NF, Dove, CJ and Walters, EL. 2016. Overcoming challenges to morphological and molecular identification of Empidonax flycatchers: a case study with a Dusky Flycatcher. Journal of Field Ornithology, 87(1): 96–103. DOI: 10.1111/jofo.12132
    Back to article
  38. 38Herman-Mercer, N, Antweiler, R, Wilson, N, Mutter, E, Toohey, R and Schuster, P. 2018. Data Quality from a Community-Based, Water-Quality Monitoring Project in the Yukon River Basin. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 3(2): 1–13, DOI: 10.5334/cstp.123
    Back to article
  39. 39Hull, JM, Fish, AM, Keane, JJ, Mori, SR, Sacks, BN and Hull, AG. 2010. Estimation of Species Identification Error: Implications for Raptor Migration Counts and Trend Estimation. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(6): 1326–1334. DOI: 10.1111/j.1937-2817.2010.tb01254.x
    Back to article
  40. 40Jackson, MM, Gergel, SE and Martin, K. 2015. Citizen science and field survey observations provide comparable results for mapping Vancouver Island White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura saxatilis) distributions. Biological Conservation, 181: 162–172. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.010
    Back to article
  41. 41Johnston, A, Hochachka, WM, Strimas-Mackey, ME, Ruiz Gutierrez, V, Robinson, OJ, Miller, ET, Auer, T, Kelling, ST and Fink, D. 2021. Analytical guidelines to increase the value of community science data: An example using eBird data to estimate species distributions. Diversity and Distributions, 27: 1135–1333. DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13271
    Back to article
  42. 42Jordan, RC, Ballard, HL and Phillips, TB. 2012. Key issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen science learning outcomes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6): 307–309. DOI: 10.1890/110280
    Back to article
  43. 43Kelling, S, Johnston, A, Hochachka, WM, Iliff, M, Fink, D, Gerbracht, J, Lagoze, C, La Sorte, FA, Moore, T, Wiggins, A, Wong, WK, Wood, C and Yu, J. 2015. Can observation skills of citizen scientists be estimated using species accumulation curves? PLoS One, 10(10). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139600
    Back to article
  44. 44Kosmala, M, Wiggins, A, Swanson, A and Simmons, B. 2016. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(10): 551–560. DOI: 10.1002/fee.1436
    Back to article
  45. 45Lasky, M, Parsons, A, Schuttler, S, Mash, A, Larson, L, Norton, B, Pease, B, Boone, H, Gatens, L and Kays, R. 2021. Candid Critters: Challenges and Solutions in a Large-Scale Citizen Science Camera Trap Project. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 6(1): 4. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.343
    Back to article
  46. 46Lawrence, A and Turnhout, E. 2010. Personal meaning in the public sphere: the standardisation and rationalisation of biodiversity data in the UK and the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 26: 353–360. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.02.001
    Back to article
  47. 47Li, E, Parker, SS, Pauly, GB, Randall, JM, Brown, BV and Cohen, BS. 2019. An urban biodiversity assessment framework that combines an urban habitat classification scheme and citizen science data. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7: 277. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00277
    Back to article
  48. 48MacKenzie, DI, Nicholls, JD, Royle, JA, Pollock, KA, Bailey, LL and Hines, JE. 2006. Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Elsevier, Boston, Massachusetts.
    Back to article
  49. 49Mattson, MD, Walk, MF, Kerr, PA, Slepski, AM, Zajicek, OT and Godfrey, PJ. 1994. Quality assurance testing for a large scale volunteer monitoring program: The acid rain monitoring project. Lake and Reservoir Management, 9(1): 10–13. DOI: 10.1080/07438149409354715
    Back to article
  50. 50Merenlender, AM, Crall, AW, Drill, S, Prysby, M and Ballard, H. 2016. Evaluating environmental education, citizen science, and stewardship through naturalist programs. Conservation Biology, 30(6): 1255–65. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12737
    Back to article
  51. 51National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM). 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/25183
    Back to article
  52. 52Newman, C, Buesching, CD and Macdonald, DW. 2003. Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation – “Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?”. Biological Conservation, 113(2): 189–197. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00374-9
    Back to article
  53. 53Newman, G, Crall, A, Laituri, M, Graham, J, Stohlgren, T, Moore, JC, Kodrich, K and Holfelder, KA. 2010. Teaching Citizen Science Skills Online: Implications for Invasive Species Training Programs. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 9(4): 276–286. DOI: 10.1080/1533015X.2010.530896
    Back to article
  54. 54Nicholson, E, Ryan, J and Hodgkins, D. 2002. Community data – where does the value lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data. Water Science & Technology, 45(11): 193–200. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2002.0395
    Back to article
  55. 55Pandya, RE. 2012. A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10: 314–317. DOI: 10.1890/120007
    Back to article
  56. 56Peters, M, Eames, C and Hamilton, D. 2015. The use and value of citizen science data in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 45: 151–160. DOI: 10.1080/03036758.2015.1051549
    Back to article
  57. 57Prysby, MD and Oberhauser, KS. 2004. Temporal and geographic variation in monarch densities: Citizen scientists document monarch population patterns. In: Oberhauser, KS and Solensky, MJ (eds.) The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. pp. 9–20.
    Back to article
  58. 58Ralph, CJ, Sauer, JR and Droege, S. 1995. Monitoring bird populations by point counts. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-149, Pacific Southwest Research Station. DOI: 10.2737/PSW-GTR-149
    Back to article
  59. 59Randler, C. 2021.Users of a citizen science platform for bird data collection differ from other birdwatchers in knowledge and degree of specialization. Global Ecology and Conservation, 27: e01580. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01580
    Back to article
  60. 60Ratnieks, FLW, Schrell, F, Sheppard, RC, Brown, E, Bristow, OE and Garbuzov, M. 2016. Data reliability in citizen science: learning curve and the effects of training method, volunteer background and experience on identification accuracy of insects visiting ivy flowers. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(10): 1226–1235. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12581
    Back to article
  61. 61Rigby, EA and Johnson, DH. 2019. Factors affecting detection probability, effective area surveyed, and species misidentification in grassland bird point counts. The Condor, 121(3): duz030. DOI: 10.1093/condor/duz030
    Back to article
  62. 62Ruiz-Gutierrez, V, Bjerre, ER, Otto, MC, Zimmerman, GS, Millsap, BA, Fink, D, Stuber, EF, Strimas-Mackey, M and Robinson, OJ. 2021. A pathway for citizen science data to inform policy: A case study using eBird data for defining low-risk collision areas for wind energy development. Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(6): 1104–1111. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13870
    Back to article
  63. 63Russo, D, Ancillotto, L and Jones, G. 2017. Bats are still not birds in the digital era: echolocation call variation and why it matters for bat species identification. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 96(2). DOI: 10.1139/cjz-2017-0089
    Back to article
  64. 64Sauer, JR, Link, WA, Fallon, JE, Pardieck, KL and Ziolkowski, DJ. 2013. The North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966–2011: Summary analysis and species accounts. North American Fauna, 79(79): 1–32. DOI: 10.3996/nafa.79.0001
    Back to article
  65. 65Shochat, E, Lerman, S and Fernández-Juricic, E. 2010. Birds in Urban Ecosystems: Population Dynamics, Community Structure, Biodiversity, and Conservation. Urban Ecosystem Ecology, 55. DOI: 10.2134/agronmonogr55.c4
    Back to article
  66. 66Silvertown, J, Buesching, CD, Jacobson, SK and Rebelo, T. 2013. Citizen science and nature conservation. In: Macdonald, DW and Willis, KJ (eds.), Key Topics in Conservation Biology, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 124–142. DOI: 10.1002/9781118520178.ch8
    Back to article
  67. 67Sorensen, AE, Jordan, RC, LaDeau, SL, Biehler, D, Wilson, S, Pitas, J-H and Leisnham, PT. 2019. Reflecting on Efforts to Design an Inclusive Citizen Science Project in West Baltimore. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.170
    Back to article
  68. 68Stylinski, CD, Peterman, K, Phillips, T, Linhard, J, BeckerKlein, R. 2020. Assessing science inquiry skills of citizen science volunteers: a snapshot of the field. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 10(1): 77–92. DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2020.1719288
    Back to article
  69. 69Sullivan, BL, Wood, CL, Iliff, MJ, Bonney, RE, Fink, D and Kelling, S. 2009. eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation, 142(10): 2282–2292. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.006
    Back to article
  70. 70Team eBird. 2021. eBird passes 1 billion bird observations. eBird News, 12 May [https://ebird.org/news/ebird-passes-1-billion-bird-observations last accessed October 29, 2022].
    Back to article
  71. 71Thompson, AA and Mapstone, BD. 1997. Observer effects and training in underwater visual surveys of reef fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 154: 53–63. DOI: 10.3354/meps154053
    Back to article
  72. 72Tulloch, AIT, Possingham, HP, Joseph, LN, Szabo, J and Martin, TG. 2013. Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation, 165: 128–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025
    Back to article
  73. 73Tyre, AJ, Tenhumberg, B, Field, SA, Niejalke, D, Parris, K and Possingham, HP. 2003. Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false-negative error rates. Ecological Applications, 13(6): 1790–1801. DOI: 10.1890/02-5078
    Back to article
  74. 74Unger, S, Rollins, M, Tietz, A and Dumais, H. 2021. iNaturalist as an engaging tool for identifying organisms in outdoor activities. Journal of Biological Education, 55(5): 537–547. DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2020.1739114
    Back to article
  75. 75Urick, M. 2016. Adapting training to meet the preferred learning styles of different generations. International Journal of Training and Development, 21(1): 53–59. DOI: 10.1111/ijtd.12093
    Back to article
  76. 76van der Velde, T, Milton, DA, Lawson, TJ, Wilcox, C, Lansdell, M, Davis, G, Perkins, G and Hardesty, BD. 2017. Comparison of marine debris data collected by researchers and citizen scientists: Is citizen science data worth the effort? Biological Conservation, 208: 127–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.025
    Back to article
  77. 77van der Wal, R, Sharma, N, Mellish, C, Robinson, A and Siddharthan, A. 2016. The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science. Conservation Biology, 30(3): 550–561. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12705
    Back to article
  78. 78Walker, J and Taylor, PD. 2017. Using eBird data to model population change of migratory bird species. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 12(1): 4. DOI: 10.5751/ACE-00960-120104
    Back to article
  79. 79Wilkins, EJ, Cole, NW, Miller, HM, Schuster, RM, Dayer, AA, Duberstein, JN and Raedeke, AH. 2019. Rural-urban differences in hunting and birdwatching attitudes and participation intent. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 24(6): 530–547. DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2019.1661046
    Back to article
  80. 80Young, JS, Ammon, EM, Weisberg, PJ, Dilts, TE, Newton, WE, Wong-Kone, DC and Heki, LG. 2013. Comparison of bird community indices for riparian restoration planning and monitoring. Ecological Indicators, 34: 159–167. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.05.004
    Back to article
  81. 81Yu, J, Hutchinson, R and Wong, WK. 2014. A Latent Variable Model for Discovering Bird Species Commonly Misidentified by Citizen Scientists. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 28(1). DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v28i1.8763
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.604 | Journal eISSN: 2057-4991
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Oct 31, 2022
Accepted on: Apr 7, 2023
Published on: Jun 5, 2023
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
citizen science,
learning evaluation,
training,
bird surveys,
species identification

© 2023 Cooper M. Farr, Frances Ngo, Bryant Olsen, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 8 (2023): Issue 1Next article