MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990952624 · doi:10.1002/wsb.1020

Using morphological measurements to predict subspecies of Midcontinent sandhill cranes

2019· article· en· W2990952624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jay A. VonBank, David A. Brandt, Aaron P. Yetter, David B. Wester, Bart M. Ballard

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspeciesSandhillMorphometricsBiologyZoologyPopulationEcologyGeographyDemographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Midcontinent population of sandhill cranes ( Antigone canadensis ) has historically been classified into 3 putative subspecies, but genetic analyses have identified only 2 genetically distinct subspecies. Previous studies have successfully used morphometrics in combination with an individual's sex to differentiate subspecies of sandhill cranes that had been inferred based on breeding area, but no study has used a sample of genetically determined subspecies to discriminate and develop predictive models. Using measurements from 843 adult sandhill cranes captured throughout their range and annual cycle (in 4 States and 1 Canadian province during 1998–2007), we used linear discriminant analysis to classify genetically identified A. c. canadensis (lesser) and A. c. tabida (greater) sandhill crane subspecies, and developed a field‐ready tool to predict subspecies using common morphometric measurements without determination of an individual's sex. Our top‐ranked model was 89.5% accurate overall, and used flattened wing chord, total culmen, and tarsometatarsus lengths to correctly identify 93.1% of A. c. canadensis and 82.8% of A. c. tabida subspecies. Additionally, we identified measurement thresholds based on posterior probabilities of correct classification to aid in subspecies determination when the linear discriminant procedure provided equivocal results. We also investigated whether sex determination could increase accuracy of our top‐ranked model, and found that accuracy increased <1% when including this information. We suggest collection of the morphometric measurements used in our top‐ranked model to determine subspecies of adult Midcontinent sandhill cranes. Our method does not require determining sex of the individual to correctly classify subspecies, allows for accurate and rapid subspecies determination, and can largely avoid additional costs and time associated with genetic analyses to determine subspecies. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207