MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563302721 · doi:10.1002/jmor.20625

Points on the curve: An analysis of methods for assessing the shape of vertebrate claws

2016· article· en· W2563302721 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander Tinius, Anthony P. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Morphology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsClawCurvatureMidpointGeometryIntersection (aeronautics)BiologyAmnioteArc lengthMathematicsVertebrateArc (geometry)EcologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The form of amniote claws has been extensively investigated, often with inferences about ecological association being drawn from studies of their geometry. Various methods have been used to quantify differences in the geometry of claws, but rarely have the underlying assumptions of such methods been addressed. Here, we use one set of bird claws and apply six methods (five that have been previously used, and a new one) that are tasked with comparing their shape. In doing so, we compare the (1) ability of these methods to represent the shape of the claw; (2) validity of the assumptions made about underlying claw geometry; (3) their ability to be applied unambiguously; and (4) their ability to differentiate between predetermined functional clusters. We find that of the six methods considered only the geometric morphometric approach reveals differences in the shapes of bird claws. Our comparison shows that geometry-based methods can provide a general estimate of the degree of curvature of claw arcs, but are unable to differentiate between shapes. Of all of the geometry-based approaches, we conclude that the adjusted version of the Zani (2000) method is the most useful because it can be applied without ambiguity, and provides a reliable estimate of claw curvature. The three landmarks that define that method (tip and base of the claw arc, plus the intersection between said claw arc and a line drawn perpendicular from the midpoint of tip and claw base) do not all bear biological significance, but relatively clearly circumscribe the length-to-height ratio of the claw, which relates to its curvature. Overall, our comparisons reveal that the shape of avian claws does not differ significantly between climbing and perching birds, and that the utilization of preordained functional clusters in comparative data analysis can hinder the discovery of meaningful differences in claw shape. J. Morphol. 278:150-169, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals,Inc.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations46
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MorphologySame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207