Testing of the Effect of Missing Data Estimation and Distribution in Morphometric Multivariate Data Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missing data are an unavoidable problem in biological data sets and the performance of missing data deletion and estimation techniques in morphometric data sets is poorly understood. Here, a novel method is used to measure the introduced error of multiple techniques on a representative sample. A large sample of extant crocodilian skulls was measured and analyzed with principal component analysis (PCA). Twenty-three different proportions of missing data were introduced into the data set, estimated, analyzed, and compared with the original result using Procrustes superimposition. Previous work investigating the effects of missing data input missing values randomly, a non-biological phenomenon. Here, missing data were introduced into the data set using three methodologies: purely at random, as a function of the Euclidean distance between respective measurements (simulating anatomical regions), and as a function of the portion of the sample occupied by each taxon (simulating unequal missing data in rare taxa). Gower's distance was found to be the best performing non-estimation method, and Bayesian PCA the best performing estimation method. Specimens of the taxa with small sample sizes and those most morphologically disparate had the highest estimation error. Distribution of missing data had a significant effect on the estimation error for almost all methods and proportions. Taxonomically biased missing data tended to show similar trends to random, but with higher error rates. Anatomically biased missing data showed a much greater deviation from random than the taxonomic bias, and with magnitudes dependent on the estimation 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.124 | 0.380 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".