MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2577578864 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169810

Assessing Sexual Dicromatism: The Importance of Proper Parameterization in Tetrachromatic Visual Models

2017· article· en· W2577578864 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre‐Paul Bitton, Kevyn Janisse, Stéphanie M. Doucet

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaField Museum
KeywordsContrast (vision)GalliformesChromatic scaleColor visionSensitivity (control systems)BiologyBiological systemNoise (video)Sexual dimorphismTransmission (telecommunications)Photopic visionOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceRetinaZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perceptual models of animal vision have greatly contributed to our understanding of animal-animal and plant-animal communication. The receptor-noise model of color contrasts has been central to this research as it quantifies the difference between two colors for any visual system of interest. However, if the properties of the visual system are unknown, assumptions regarding parameter values must be made, generally with unknown consequences. In this study, we conduct a sensitivity analysis of the receptor-noise model using avian visual system parameters to systematically investigate the influence of variation in light environment, photoreceptor sensitivities, photoreceptor densities, and light transmission properties of the ocular media and the oil droplets. We calculated the chromatic contrast of 15 plumage patches to quantify a dichromatism score for 70 species of Galliformes, a group of birds that display a wide range of sexual dimorphism. We found that the photoreceptor densities and the wavelength of maximum sensitivity of the short-wavelength-sensitive photoreceptor 1 (SWS1) can change dichromatism scores by 50% to 100%. In contrast, the light environment, transmission properties of the oil droplets, transmission properties of the ocular media, and the peak sensitivities of the cone photoreceptors had a smaller impact on the scores. By investigating the effect of varying two or more parameters simultaneously, we further demonstrate that improper parameterization could lead to differences between calculated and actual contrasts of more than 650%. Our findings demonstrate that improper parameterization of tetrachromatic visual models can have very large effects on measures of dichromatism scores, potentially leading to erroneous inferences. We urge more complete characterization of avian retinal properties and recommend that researchers either determine whether their species of interest possess an ultraviolet or near-ultraviolet sensitive SWS1 photoreceptor, or present models for both.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.068 · 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→