MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052336637 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12128

Incomplete specimens in geometric morphometric analyses

2013· article· en· W2052336637 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataEstimatorPrincipal component analysisData setStatisticsLandmarkSample size determinationSample (material)Multivariate statisticsMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The analysis of morphological diversity frequently relies on the use of multivariate methods for characterizing biological shape. However, many of these methods are intolerant of missing data, which can limit the use of rare taxa and hinder the study of broad patterns of ecological diversity and morphological evolution. This study applied a mutli‐data set approach to compare variation in missing data estimation and its effect on geometric morphometric analyses across taxonomically variable groups, landmark position and sample sizes. Missing morphometric landmark data were simulated from five real, complete data sets, including modern fish, primates and extinct theropod dinosaurs. Missing landmarks were then estimated using several standard approaches and a geometric‐morphometric‐specific method. The accuracy of missing data estimation was determined for each estimation method, landmark position and morphological data set. Procrustes superimposition was used to compare the eigenvectors and principal component scores of a geometric morphometric analysis of the original landmark data, to data sets with A) missing values estimated, or B) simulated incomplete specimens excluded, for varying levels of specimens incompleteness and sample sizes. Standard estimation techniques were more reliable estimators and had lower impacts on morphometric analysis compared with a geometric‐morphometric‐specific estimator. For most data sets and estimation techniques, estimating missing data produced a better fit to the structure of the original data than exclusion of incomplete specimens, and this was maintained even at considerably reduced sample sizes. The impact of missing data on geometric morphometric analysis was disproportionately affected by the most fragmentary specimens. Missing data estimation was influenced by variability of specific anatomical features and may be improved by a better understanding of shape variation present in a data set. Our results suggest that the inclusion of incomplete specimens through the use of effective missing data estimators better reflects the patterns of shape variation within a data set than using only complete specimens; however, the effectiveness of missing data estimation can be maximized by excluding only the most incomplete specimens. It is advised that missing data estimators be evaluated for each data set and landmark independently, as the effectiveness of estimators can vary strongly and unpredictably between different taxa and structures.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.289 · 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