MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983365857 · doi:10.1117/12.382739

<title>Validation of self-reported skin color via analysis of diffuse reflectance spectra of skin</title>

2000· article· en· W1983365857 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Weersink, Lorraine D. Marrett, Lothar Lilge, Mark P. Purdue, Stephen D. Walter

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflectivityPrincipal component analysisSunlightSkin colorArtificial neural networkDiffuse reflectionDiffuse reflectance infrared fourier transformColor analysisSpectral lineOpticsComputer scienceMaterials scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsChemistryAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The validity of self-reported skin color was assessed by comparing the responses of a skin color survey with the external measure of diffuse reflectance spectrophotometry. Reflectance spectra of 108 subjects were measured at sites on the arm normally exposed to sunlight and sites normally unexposed to sunlight. The reflectance spectra were analyzed with a variety of discriminating algorithms, such as principal component analysis, and competitive neural networks. For subjects with light and dark skin, there was good correspondence between the survey results and groupings derived by the neural network analysis. For those people reporting medium skin color, the correspondence with the neural network groupings was poor. It was unclear if this was due to poor self-reporting or deficiencies in the spectral analysis.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207