MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053193099 · doi:10.1117/12.2082596

Dynamic hierarchical algorithm for accelerated microfossil identification

2015· article· en· W2053193099 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy Wong, Dileepan Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Computer scienceArtificial neural networkBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligenceComputationUnsupervised learningSupervised learningMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine microfossils provide a useful record of the Earth's resources and prehistory via biostratigraphy. To study Hydrocarbon reservoirs and prehistoric climate, geoscientists visually identify the species of microfossils found in core samples. Because microfossil identification is labour intensive, automation has been investigated since the 1980s. With the initial rule-based systems, users still had to examine each specimen under a microscope. While artificial neural network systems showed more promise for reducing expert labour, they also did not displace manual identification for a variety of reasons, which we aim to overcome. In our human-based computation approach, the most difficult step, namely taxon identification is outsourced via a frontend website to human volunteers. A backend algorithm, called dynamic hierarchical identification, uses unsupervised, supervised, and dynamic learning to accelerate microfossil identification. Unsupervised learning clusters specimens so that volunteers need not identify every specimen during supervised learning. Dynamic learning means interim computation outputs prioritize subsequent human inputs. Using a dataset of microfossils identified by an expert, we evaluated correct and incorrect genus and species rates versus simulated time, where each specimen identification defines a moment. The proposed algorithm accelerated microfossil identification effectively, especially compared to benchmark results obtained using a k-nearest neighbour method.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207