MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1973893661 · doi:10.1139/f06-001

Semi-local extraction of ring structures in images of biological hard tissues: application to the Bayesian interpretation of fish otoliths for age and growth estimation

2006· article· en· W1973893661 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ronan Fablet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityOtolithData setA priori and a posterioriSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceFish <Actinopterygii>Interpretation (philosophy)RidgeArtificial intelligenceSelection (genetic algorithm)Pattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMathematicsGeologyBiologyFisheryPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the analysis of images of biological tissue that involves ring structures, such as tree trunks, bivalve seashells, or fish otoliths, with a view to automating the acquisition of age and growth data. A bottom-up template-based scheme extracts meaningful ridge and valley curve data using growth-adapted time-frequency filtering. Age and growth estimation is then stated as the Bayesian selection of a subset of ring curves, which combines a measure of curve significativity and an a priori statistical growth model. Experiments on real samples demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed data extraction stage. Our Bayesian framework is shown to significantly outperform previous methods for the interpretation of a data set of 200 plaice otoliths and compares favorably with interexpert agreement rates (88% of agreement to expert interpretations).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→