MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523284580 · doi:10.14351/0831-4985-30.1.73

Three legs good, four legs better: Making a quagga whole again with 3D printing

2016· article· en· W2523284580 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nigel R. Larkin, Laura B. Porro

Bibliographic record

VenueCollection Forum · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScapulaEquusAnatomySkeleton (computer programming)Computed tomographyComputer scienceBiologyPaleontologyMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Specimens of extinct animals are among the most precious items in a museum’s collection. They are vital for research and education, especially those that have become extinct relatively recently due to human activity. Only seven skeletons of the extinct subspecies of plains zebra Equus quagga quagga are known to exist in museum collections worldwide, including a specimen on display at the Grant Museum of Zoology, London. However, the left hind leg and right scapula of this specimen have been missing for many years. As part of a recent project to conserve and remount this skeleton, the left scapula and articulated right hind limb were scanned using computed tomography (CT) so that mirrored data could be used to 3D print the missing bones. The 3D-printed models installed on the original specimen do more than provide an anatomically complete skeleton and improve the physical stability of the specimen; the black 3D printed bones contrast with the rest of the skeleton, which highlights the work undertaken and provides a more engaging exhibit. The CT scans are also available for research and as an interactive 3D model within the display.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollection ForumSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207