MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Key Parameters of Face Shape Variation in 3D in a Large Sample*

2009· article· en· W2164321895 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Evison, Ian L. Dryden, Nick Fieller, Xanthé Mallett, Lucy Morecroft, Damian Schofield, Richard Vorder Bruegge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaGeneral Electric (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Sexual dimorphismAnthropometryFace (sociological concept)Sample size determinationSample (material)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceKey (lock)Pattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMathematicsGeographyBiologySociologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improvement of methods for evidential facial comparison for the Courts relies on the collection of large databases of facial images that permit the analysis of face shape variation and the development of statistical tools. In this paper, we present a short description and key findings of an anthropometric study of face shape variation in three-dimensions. We used Statistical Shape Analysis to investigate a large database sample (n = 1968), classified by age and gender. We found that size, shape of the bilateral features and midline contributed successively to overall variation. Face size is associated with age. Sexual dimorphism is evident in size and shape, and shows patterns that affect male and female subjects differently. We anticipate this approach will lend itself to the development of methods for analysis of variation within subject groups and the establishment of the relative uniqueness or abundance of facial measurements within them.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207