MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2193080625 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0103

A photographic method for lobster morphometry aimed at site discrimination

2013· article· en· W2193080625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathan Rycroft, Kristin Radcliffe, Jelle Atema

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution
KeywordsHomarusAmerican lobsterDorsumLinear discriminant analysisReproducibilityCrustaceanStatistical analysisFisheryBiologyAnatomyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current data suggest that lobster (Homarus americanus) populations are less homogenous than once believed. In an effort to better discriminate morphologically among lobsters from different sites, we developed a photographic method using ImageJ and compared it with commonly used “hand” measurements. We standardized the measuring process using a strap-down board for both dorsal and ventral photographs with a camera mounted at a fixed position above the lobster. Discriminant analysis showed that both hand and photographic methods were useful in discriminating lobsters — both males and females — from three different sites. Additionally, the photographic method improved reproducibility and resolution, it reduced measurement time at the dock, and it created a permanent record for later verification, additional statistical analyses, and observer training.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→