Benefits
- Benefit
-
EVorta correctly classified 482 of 492 cat images (97.9%) against 469 (95.3%) for staff
Awaiting review
- Outcome identifiers
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Category
-
Reduced Task Cost
Awaiting review
- Status
-
Reported benefit
Awaiting review
- Beneficiary groups
-
Organizations.
Awaiting review
- Beneficiaries
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Reach
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Distribution and access
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Duration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Expected?
-
Yes
Awaiting review
- Costs and harms
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
AI system
- System
-
EVorta online AI image classification platform, with 4G-connected Swift Enduro camera traps
Awaiting review
- Model
-
This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Release
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Provider
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Role
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Configuration
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Inputs and outputs
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Autonomy
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Workflow
-
Field staff had already classified the same images, which allowed a direct comparison. 4G cameras sent images to the cloud without site visits.
Awaiting review
- Human oversight
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Relation to AI
-
EVorta and staff classified the same 101,586 images, so the authors measure the detection of the AI against human review directly; the cost savings are modeled.
Awaiting review
- AI contribution
-
EVorta and staff classified the same 101,586 images, so the authors measure the detection of the AI against human review directly; the cost savings are modeled.
Awaiting review
Measurement
- Studies
-
Controlled observational. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Studies
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Study design
-
Controlled observational. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Study design
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Measurement
-
Image and sequence classification compared between eVorta and staff; cost and emissions from a decision tool with program inputs. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measurement
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Setting and sample
-
101,586 images from 42 cameras, 11 November 2020 to 9 September 2021; 492 cat and 155 echidna images. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Setting and sample
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Measures
-
Correct classifications, false negatives, false positives; cost over three years. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measures
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Comparison
-
Experienced field staff. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Comparison
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Results
-
97.9% against 95.3% of cat images; one against 11 missed sequences; A$2.15 million estimated saving with 4G. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Results
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Additional value from AI
-
Fewer missed cats; 81% lower estimated monitoring cost with 4G cameras. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Additional value from AI
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Limitations
-
2,751 false cat alerts against five by staff; costs modeled; one program; written by the deployer, with no eVorta author or funding. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Limitations
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
Money
- Kind of value
-
The kind of monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Amount
-
The monetary value is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Currency and prices
-
The currency and price basis are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Period and unit
-
The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Realization
-
Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Recipients and payers
-
The recipients and payers are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Gross or net
-
Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Included costs
-
The costs included in the estimate are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Comparison
-
The financial comparison is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Method
-
The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Return and payback
-
The return on investment or payback period is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
People and places
- Participants
-
Developer: eVorta. Operator: Kangaroo Island Landscape Board, Feral Cat Eradication Program.
Awaiting review
- Jurisdictions
-
Benefit: Dudley Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, South
Australia, Australia. Developer: Australia. Operator: Australia.Awaiting review
- Ownership and control
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Dependencies
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Cross-border connections
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Geopolitical implications
-
The geopolitical implications are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Follow-up
- Conditions for replication
-
4G coverage must reach the camera sites. Staff must screen the many false positives.
Awaiting review
- Replication attempts
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Later findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Availability
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Institutional decision
-
A relevant institutional decision has not been established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Grounds
-
The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Action and result
-
The result of an institutional decision is not established.
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Success criterion
-
The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.
Not reviewedUnresolved
Evidence
- Source numbers
-
AIBD-0663-source-0001
Awaiting review
- Citations
-
Numbered references below.
Awaiting review
- Language
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Source relationships
-
Operator
Awaiting review
- Original evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Access and versions
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Supported findings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence links
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence strength
-
The deployer's account. Sources: the deployer's peer-reviewed study. The cited evidence includes no independent source and no finding by a regulator or court. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Evidence strength
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Missing evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
Grades
- Assessed benefits
-
Organizations.
Awaiting review
- Depth
-
Organizations: 2.
Awaiting review
- Reasons
-
Organizations: The program detected more cat images and sequences than staff did (67 of 68 sequences against 57), with an estimated A$2.15 million saved with 4G cameras.
Awaiting review
- Observed or intended
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Rubric
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Assessor and date
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Alternative assessments
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Fill
-
The deployer's account
Awaiting review
Entry details
- Kind
-
The case describes an evaluation or a study. A deployer's comparison of AI and staff classification with a cost model. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Kind
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Related entries
-
No incident in the AI Incident Database snapshot of 26 October 2026 concerns the same kind of system harming the same kind of stakeholder.
Partly reviewedUnresolved: supporting details for Related entries
Compared with the incidents in the AI Incident Database snapshot of 26 October 2026.
- Field
-
Conservation.
Awaiting review
- Purpose
-
EVorta was built to classify species in camera-trap images and send alerts. Faster and more complete detection of feral cats is that purpose.
Awaiting review
- Dates
-
Source published: 24 June 2024. Updated: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
- Stage
-
The system was used in a pilot. The program compared eVorta with staff on archived images and tested 4G cameras in a field trial; the authors model costs for three years of running. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Stage
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Version
-
SHA-256: d0ce64fb8e09…
Awaiting review: supporting details for Version
SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.
References
- Other identifiers
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Category mappings
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Citable summary
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Revisions
-
1 revision. Latest: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
Sources
-
Peer-reviewed study Deployer
Smith J, Wycherley A, Mulvaney J, et al. Man versus machine: cost and carbon emission savings of 4G-connected Artificial Intelligence technology for classifying species in camera trap images. Sci Rep. 2024;14:14530.
eVorta correctly classified more of the cat images (n = 482, 97.9%) than humans (n = 469, 95.3%) and had fewer false negatives (n = 10) than humans (n = 18).