PAMalytics: a no-code application for structured validation of bioacoustic detections
Pickering, A.; Balvanera, S. M.; Brown, N.; Chea, S.; Preston-Allen, R.; Sor, R.; Maynard, D. S.; Lawson, J.
Show abstract
1. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is increasingly used for ecological research, biodiversity monitoring, assessment, and reporting. Automated species classifiers make it feasible to process large audio datasets but generate numerous detections that often need validation before use in downstream analyses or formal outputs. 2. Method development in PAM has focused on classifier building and downstream models that account for imperfect detection, yet the practical step between these - post-classification validation - remains weakly supported and is often implemented through ad hoc workflows. This increases manual handling, creates scope for transcription or consolidation errors, limits transparency and makes it difficult to document what was reviewed. 3. We introduce PAMalytics, an open-source, no-code, local browser-based application to support post-classification validation as a standardised workflow stage. PAMalytics ingests detections from any classifier, allows users to define how detections are sampled for review, and presents selected detections alongside their spectrograms with audio playback in one unified interface. Sampling strategy and review decisions are tracked alongside reviewer identity improving traceability and reproducibility across the validation workflow. 4. Case studies with Conservation International Cambodia and Imperial College London demonstrate PAMalytics in two validation settings. In Cambodia, gibbon predictions from a large, uneven dataset were sampled within sites, with likely classifier errors prioritised for validation. At Imperial, Amazon bird detections were sampled across each species classifier-confidence range before biodiversity metrics were derived. In both cases, PAMalytics reduced manual handling and validation time. By turning an ad hoc step into an accessible, structured workflow for conservation practitioners, PAMalytics fills a practical gap in the PAM bioacoustics pipeline and strengthens the link between automated detections and evidence used in biodiversity monitoring and reporting.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Using machine learning to count Antarctic shag (Leucocarbo bransfieldensis) nests on images captured by Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems 92%
- Automated classification of bat echolocation call recordings with artificial intelligence 91%
- Towards interpretable learned representations for Ecoacoustics using variational auto-encoding 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Acoustic monitoring for tropical insect conservation 91%
- Shifted distribution baselines: neglecting long-term biodiversity records risks overlooking potentially suitable habitat for conservation management 88%
- Combining environmental DNA and remote sensing for efficient, fine-scale mapping of arthropod biodiversity 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assemblage of Focal Species Recognizers - AFSR: A technique for decreasing false positive rates of acoustic automatic identification in a multiple species context 94%
- BirdNET can be as good as experts for acoustic bird monitoring in a European city 94%
- Evaluating the data quality of iNaturalist termite records 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Snowmobile noise alters bird vocalization patterns during winter and pre-breeding season 93%
- Fishing for mammals: landscape-level monitoring of terrestrial and semi-aquatic communities using eDNA from lotic ecosystems 91%
- Mistimed surveys lead to underestimated migratory bird impacts from wind farms 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.