Think about reorganization to Species List

[BryonLewis]

Maybe species list should be a recursive dropdown because a lot of species can be organized into a hierarchy where it gets more granular as you go down. I.E you may know that this species has a specific frequency, then a general classification and then a direct species.

We maybe can make it so that the inference can give different scores at the different levels as well.

[naglepuff]

From Jeff (via the "commercialization" google doc):

• In regulatory workflows, automated classification is only the first step. Humans must be able to manually vet calls, and they can only do that if the software gives them interpretable call-level evidence.
• Most manual review involves downgrading or rejecting ambiguous calls
• Without summary traits, or an equivalent way to see the acoustic evidence, the tool cannot be used in endangered species surveys or permit-driven monitoring
• Can you add a transparency review layer on top of your model to allow for human interpretability? Provide the summary statistics after the fact (don’t need to be model inputs) that allow humans to assess species ID in accepted ways
• Need the ability to downgrade ambiguous calls, which is central to regulatory defensibility
• Less granular but more accurate tree of probabilities.