MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145784841 · doi:10.1088/0954-898x_14_2_308

Modular organization of adaptive colouration in flounder and cuttlefish revealed by independent component analysis

2003· article· en· W2145784841 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. C. Anderson, Roland Baddeley, Daniel Osorio, Nadav Shashar, Christopher W. Tyler, V. S. Ramachandran, Anne C. Crook, Roger T. Hanlon

Bibliographic record

VenueNetwork Computation in Neural Systems · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
KeywordsCamouflageCuttlefishIndependent component analysisModularity (biology)Modular designComponent (thermodynamics)Independence (probability theory)FastICAArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)BiologyEvolutionary biologyMathematicsFisheryStatisticsBlind signal separationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flounders and cuttlefish have an impressive ability to change colouration, for camouflage and, in the case of cuttlefish, for communication. We pursue the hypothesis that these diverse patterns are created by combining a small number of distinct pattern modules. Independent component analysis (ICA) is a powerful tool for identifying independent sources of variation in linear mixtures of signals. Two versions of ICA are used, one assuming that sources have independence over time, and the other over space. These reveal the modularity of the skin colouration system, and suggest how the pattern modules are combined in specific behavioural contexts. ICA may therefore be a useful tool for studying animal camouflage and communication.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNetwork Computation in Neural SystemsSame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207