MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2349944003

3D geometric morphometrics of some ursid skulls

2013· article· en· W2349944003 on OpenAlexaff
Xing Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueGujizhui dongwu xuebao · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphometricsSkullMorphology (biology)Principal component analysisMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Ailuropoda melanoleucaBiologyAnatomyZoologyArtificial intelligenceGenusComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 3D laser scanning technique is nowadays more and more applied in the study of skeleton morphology.Complete 3D model of external geometry can be easily obtained by laser scanning.It contains all the external morphologic information,both size and shape,which is the prerequisite for quantitative study of fossil morphology.The materials in this study include specimens of giant panda,Asian black bear,brown bear,and polar bear.Using 3D laser scanning,the complete 3D models of skulls and mandibles of 28 individuals are built.Nine mandible morphological indexes and 15 skull morphological indexes are selected to build mathematical models.We use J48 algorithm of WEKA to build decision trees for pattern classification.23 landmarks of mandibles and 29 landmarks of skulls are sorted,of which 3D coordinates are used as initial variables to tell the morphological differences of mandibles and craniums of the 28 individuals in the principal component analysis.The result shows that the morphology of giant panda's skull and mandible is signifcantly different from the other three ursid forms; the morphology of brown bear's skull and mandible is in between the black bear and polar bear.The overall cranial morphology of Ailuropoda microta is similar to that of giant panda,but also out of the intraspecific variation,which is another evidence of the durophagous feeding behavior of this Early Pleistocene giant panda.The methods of 3D modeling,decision tree and principal components analysis introduced herein promise future application in morphologic studies.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGujizhui dongwu xuebaoSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207