MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906110699 · doi:10.1002/aps3.1204

Shape outline extraction software (DiaOutline) for elliptic Fourier analysis application in morphometric studies

2018· article· en· W2906110699 on OpenAlexaff
Asher Wishkerman, Paul B. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueApplications in Plant Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySoftwareScripting languageShape analysis (program analysis)Metric (unit)DiatomMATLABPopulationTaxonFourier analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceFourier transformBotanyMathematicsEcologyEngineeringMathematical analysisProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Studies of plant cell and organ outline using shape analysis for taxonomic and morphological research have increased in the past decade. However, there are a limited number of available modern, intuitive, and easy software tools to conduct this work. METHODS: We developed a tool for shape outline extraction using MATLAB accompanied with R scripts to perform elliptic Fourier analysis. To demonstrate the shape tool, we applied the software and scripts for genera and species shape determinations of diatom (single cell) species with x-, y-, and x- + y-shape symmetries. RESULTS: Using the shape analysis tool, we were able to identify and distinguish different diatom taxa based on forms representing size diminutions associated with population changes. DISCUSSION: Independent of symmetry, species were successfully distinguished using supervised and unsupervised analyses. We hope that these shape analysis tools will be used to add another metric to plant science 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.016

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplications in Plant SciencesSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207