talk · Friday 25 September · 09:00–⁠09:12 · SAL A

From Historical Oology Cards to Structured Biodiversity Data: Multimodal LLM Transcription, Uncertainty Metrics, and Human Review

Grete Pasch · Large Language Models for Biodiversity Data Discovery, Integration, and Curation. Part A: AI- enabled knowledge creation and extraction

Recording time 1:25:09–1:36:51Open on Vimeo ↗

Summaries and key moments are machine-produced. Check the recording for the speaker’s exact words.

The short versionToken-level hesitation from log-probabilities does not tell you which transcriptions are wrong, but it reliably predicts where human review effort will go.

Overview

What this was about

Grete Pasch transcribed historical oology (egg-set) cards with GPT-4o and used token log-probabilities to build a 'hesitation' score. The score does not flag every error, but it predicts how much human review a card needs. Cards were sorted into light, standard and expert review lanes; the expert lane held about a fifth of the cards but took half to two-thirds of the correction time, on both the Cornell set and 2,303 Western Foundation cards. Newer models (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Opus 5) are more accurate but do not expose log-probs; where two of them agree they are right about 997 times in 1,000, but that still does not certify a transcription.

Why it matters. Most LLM transcription work stops at accuracy. This talk offers a practical way to triage expert review and estimate curation effort for millions of archival cards, and warns that the best models no longer expose the signals needed for it.

Key ideas

In the room

  • Nest descriptions on historical egg cards record changes in nest materials (e.g. plastic in modern Baltimore oriole nests), but they are rarely transcribed.
  • GPT-4o transcribed 193 of 262 cards exactly (about three in four). Typed cards were nearly perfect; handwritten cards were about two in three exact.
  • With logprobs enabled, the model reports its confidence in each token and its top alternatives. On a gull card it wrote '7,000' at 58% where the correct '2,000' was the runner-up at 27%.
  • A token counts as 'hesitant' when the top choice is less than 2.7 times as likely as the runner-up; the card hesitation score is the number of hesitant tokens.
  • Some cards with no hesitation still had errors (confident errors), so hesitation marks uncertainty, not correctness.
  • Three lanes (0-1, 2-4, 5+ hesitant tokens): median correction time was under a second in the light and standard lanes and 11 seconds in the expert lane.
  • The pattern held on 2,303 harder handwritten cards from the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology.
Jump in

Notable moments

In their words

Transcript

Automatically generated captions can contain mistakes, especially in names and technical terms. Times are relative to the room recording.

Read the transcript ↓
Loading transcript…
Programme abstract

From Historical Oology Cards to Structured Biodiversity Data: Multimodal LLM Transcription, Uncertainty Metrics, and Human Review

Grete Pasch

Historical biodiversity collections contain vast quantities of ecological information embedded in handwritten and typed archival records that remain difficult to access at scale. This project explored the use of multimodal large language models (LLMs) to transcribe and structure oological information found in historical specimen cards from the Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates. These cards record collectors' data associated with bird egg sets, breeding phenology, nest materials, and habitat descriptions collected between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries.

Using GPT-4o and Clause Sonnet 4.6-based workflows, I evaluated methods for extracting both literal transcriptions and semantically structured biodiversity data from heterogeneous card layouts containing handwriting, typewriting, annotations, and mixed narrative content. Beyond transcription accuracy, my project investigates methods for estimating review effort and transcription reliability using token-level uncertainty signals and a human-in-the-loop validation workflow. I developed a "hesitation" score based on token-level probabilities and found that this score correlates with human correction effort and may support scalable triage of records requiring expert review.

This project demonstrates how historical narrative records can become machine-actionable biodiversity data while preserving provenance, interpretability, and curatorial oversight. I discuss implications for biodiversity data mobilization and the integration of semantically enriched collection records into standards-based biodiversity infrastructures.

Submitted to the conference programme before the talk, so the talk itself may differ.