Using Neural Networks to identify Individual Animals from Photographs

Effective management needs to know sizes of animal populations. This can be accomplished in various ways, but a very popular way is mark-recapture studies. Mark-recapture studies need a way of telling if a captured animal has been previously seen. For traditional mark-recapture, this is achieved by applying a tag to the animal. For non-invasive mark-recapture methods which exploit photographs, there is no tag on the animal’s body. As a result, these methods require animals to be individually identifiable. They assess if an animal has been caught before by examining photographs for animals which have individual-specific marks (Cross et al., 2014; Gomez et al., 2016; Beijbom et al., 2016; Körschens, Barz, and Denzler, 2018). This study develops a model which can reliably match photographs of the same individual based on individual-specific marks. The model consists of two main parts, an object detection model, and a classifier which takes two photos as input and outputs a predicted probability that the pair is from the same individual (a match). The object detection model is a convolutional neural network (CNN) and the matching classifier is a special kind of CNN called a siamese network. The siamese network uses a pair of CNNs that share weights to summarise the images, followed by some dense layers which combine the summaries into measures of similarity which can be used to predict a match. The model is tested on two case studies, humpback whales (HBWs) and western leopard toads (WLTs). The HBW dataset consists of images originally collected by various institutions across the globe and uploaded to the Happywhale platform which encourages scientists to identify individual mammals. HBWs can be identified by their fins and specials markings. There is lots of data for this problem. The WLT dataset consists of images collected by citizen scientists in South Africa. They were either uploaded to iSpot, a citizen science project which collects images or sent to the (WLT) project, a conservation project staffed by volunteers. WLTs can be identified by their unique spots. There is a little data for this problem. One part of this dataset consists of labelled individuals and another part is unlabelled. The model was able to give good results for both HBWs and WLTs. In 95% of the cases the model managed to correctly identify if a pair of images is from the same HBW individual or not. It accurately identified if a pair of images is drawn from the same WLT individual or not in 87% of the cases. This study also assessed the effectiveness of the semi-supervised approach on the WLT unlabelled dataset. In this study, the semisupervised approach has been partially successful. The model was able to identify new individuals and matches which were not identified before, but they were relatively few in numbers. Without an exhaustive check of the data, it is not clear whether this is due to the failure of the semi-supervised approach, or because there are not many matches in the data. After adding the newly identified and labelled individuals to the WLT labelled dataset, the model slightly improved its performance and correctly identified 89% of WLT pairs. A number of computer-aided photo-matching algorithms have been proposed (Matthé et al., 2017). This study also assessed the performance of Wild-ID (Bolger et al., 2012), one of the commonly used photo-matching algorithm on both HBW and WLT datasets. The model developed in this thesis achieved very competitive results compared with Wild-ID. Model accuracies for the proposed siamese network were much higher than those returned by Wild-ID on the HBW dataset, and roughly the same on the WLT dataset

PSA 2018

These preprints were automatically compiled into a PDF from the collection of papers deposited in PhilSci-Archive in conjunction with the PSA 2018

2017 GREAT Day Program

SUNY Geneseo’s Eleventh Annual GREAT Day.https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/program-2007/1011/thumbnail.jp

A critical review of the current state of forensic science knowledge and its integration in legal systems

Forensic science has a significant historical and contemporary relationship with the criminal justice system. It is a relationship between two disciplines whose origins stem from different backgrounds. It is trite that effective communication assist in resolving underlying problems in any given context. However, a lack of communication continues to characterise the intersection between law and science. As recently as 2019, a six-part symposium on the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system again posed the question on how the justice system could ensure the reliability of forensic science evidence presented during trials. As the law demands finality, science is always evolving and can never be considered finite or final. Legal systems do not always adapt to the nature of scientific knowledge, and are not willing to abandon finality when that scientific knowledge shifts. Advocacy plays an important role in the promotion of forensic science, particularly advocacy to the broader scientific community for financial support, much needed research and more testing. However, despite its important function, advocacy should not be conflated with science. The foundation of advocacy is a cause; whereas the foundation of science is fact. The objective of this research was to conduct a qualitative literature review of the field of forensic science; to identify gaps in the knowledge of forensic science and its integration in the criminal justice system. The literature review will provide researchers within the field of forensic science with suggested research topics requiring further examination and research. To achieve its objective, the study critically analysed the historical development of, and evaluated the use of forensic science evidence in legal systems generally, including its role regarding the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence in the courtroom. In conclusion, it was determined that the breadth of forensic scientific knowledge is comprehensive but scattered. The foundational underpinning of the four disciplines, discussed in this dissertation, has been put to the legal test on countless occasions. Some gaps still remain that require further research in order to strengthen the foundation of the disciplines. Human influence will always be present in examinations and interpretations and will lean towards subjective decision making.JurisprudenceD. Phil

Approaching algorithmic power

Contemporary power manifests in the algorithmic. Emerging quite recently as an object of study within media and communications, cultural research, gender and race studies, and urban geography, the algorithm often seems ungraspable. Framed as code, it becomes proprietary property, black-boxed and inaccessible. Framed as a totality, its becomes overwhelmingly complex, incomprehensible in its operations. Framed as a procedure, it becomes a technique to be optimised, bracketing out the political. In struggling to adequately grasp the algorithmic as an object of study, to unravel its mechanisms and materialities, these framings offer limited insight into how algorithmic power is initiated and maintained. This thesis instead argues for an alternative approach: firstly, that the algorithmic is coordinated by a coherent internal logic, a knowledge-structure that understands the world in particular ways; second, that the algorithmic is enacted through control, a material and therefore observable performance which purposively influences people and things towards a predetermined outcome; and third, that this complex totality of architectures and operations can be productively analysed as strategic sociotechnical clusters of machines. This method of inquiry is developed with and tested against four contemporary examples: Uber, Airbnb, Amazon Alexa, and Palantir Gotham. Highly profitable, widely adopted and globally operational, they exemplify the algorithmic shift from whiteboard to world. But if the world is productive, it is also precarious, consisting of frictional spaces and antagonistic subjects. Force cannot be assumed as unilinear, but is incessantly negotiated—operations of parsing data and processing tasks forming broader operations that strive to establish subjectivities and shape relations. These negotiations can fail, destabilised by inadequate logics and weak control. A more generic understanding of logic and control enables a historiography of the algorithmic. The ability to index information, to structure the flow of labor, to exert force over subjects and spaces— these did not emerge with the microchip and the mainframe, but are part of a longer lineage of calculation. Two moments from this lineage are examined: house-numbering in the Habsburg Empire and punch-card machines in the Third Reich. Rather than revolutionary, this genealogy suggests an evolutionary process, albeit uneven, linking the computation of past and present. The thesis makes a methodological contribution to the nascent field of algorithmic studies. But more importantly, it renders algorithmic power more intelligible as a material force. Structured and implemented in particular ways, the design of logic and control construct different versions, or modalities, of algorithmic power. This power is political, it calibrates subjectivities towards certain ends, it prioritises space in specific ways, and it privileges particular practices whilst suppressing others. In apprehending operational logics, the practice of method thus foregrounds the sociopolitical dimensions of algorithmic power. As the algorithmic increasingly infiltrates into and governs the everyday, the ability to understand, critique, and intervene in this new field of power becomes more urgent