MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530341245

Three-Dimensional Analysis of Reindeer Antler Regeneration using Stereophotogrammetry

2012· article· en· W1530341245 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lukas Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of undergraduate research in Alberta · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntlerCollinearityRegeneration (biology)Growth rateMathematicsBiologyStatisticsEcologyGeometry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reindeer antlers are the only mammalian organs that completely regenerate. Thegoal of this project was to define growth characteristics of the antler during regeneration.The regions of the antler found to have the highest growth rates would indicate theregions that are enriched with growth factors that control antler regeneration. Thedetermination of these growth factors could lead to advances in regenerative medicine.Antler growth rates in three reindeer were determined using stereophotogrammetry.Using two cameras, simultaneous images of the antlers were taken over 6 weeks.Markers with known coordinates were used to calculate the orientation parameters ofthe cameras. Distinct antler points were chosen in both images, and a least squaressolution of the collinearity equations was used to calculate their 3D coordinates.Distances between points were compared between data sets to determine growth ratesof portions of the antlers.The results from both antlers of one reindeer are available with the followinglevel of precision. The variances of the calculated distances were found to be at themillimetre level, with standard deviations at the centimetre level. Distances from theantler base to branching points remained relatively constant suggesting that growthoccurs almost exclusively at the antler tips. The growth rates of the tips remained atapproximately 0.5-1 cm of daily growth. However, the growth rate of the lowest branchtip began to decelerate by the end of the study.Although this method had only the previously mentioned level of precision, thisdoes not threaten the conclusions made. The results define the locations of highestgrowth, which could be used in the study of the growth factors controlling regeneration.If this project were to be repeated, changes could be made to improve accuracy,including placing visible markers on the antlers so that consistent points could bechosen.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of undergraduate research in AlbertaSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207