MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319421087 · doi:10.7763/ijmlc.2014.v4.425

Fly Wing Biometrics Using Modified Local Binary Pattern, SVMs and Random Forest

2014· article· en· W2319421087 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Foysal Ahmad, Kaushik Roy, Brian O’Connor, Joseph Shelton, Gerry Dozier, Ian Dworkin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Machine Learning and Computing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Engineering and Technology, LahoreFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLocal binary patternsComputer scienceRandom forestSupport vector machineWingBiometricsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceTexture (cosmology)NoveltyLimit (mathematics)Image (mathematics)MathematicsHistogram

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an efficient approach for classification of the gender of a common fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, based on their wing's texture.The novelty of this research effort is that a Modified Local Binary Pattern (MLBP), which combines both the sign and magnitude features for the improvement of fly wing's texture classification performance, is applied.The extracted features are then used to classify the gender of the fruit fly by using the Support Vector Machines (SVMs) and Random Forest (RF).We validate the performance of the proposed scheme on two fly wing datasets.The highest accuracy achieved by the proposed approach is 94%.In this paper, we limit our approach to gender classification; however, this effort can be extended to explore important characteristics of a fly using wing's texture analysis.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Machine Learning and ComputingSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207