Using Delaunay triangulation to sample whole‐specimen color from digital images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Color variation is one of the most obvious examples of variation in nature, but biologically meaningful quantification and interpretation of variation in color and complex patterns are challenging. Many current methods for assessing variation in color patterns classify color patterns using categorical measures and provide aggregate measures that ignore spatial pattern, or both, losing potentially important aspects of color pattern. Here, we present Colormesh, a novel method for analyzing complex color patterns that offers unique capabilities. Our approach is based on unsupervised color quantification combined with geometric morphometrics to identify regions of putative spatial homology across samples, from histology sections to whole organisms. Colormesh quantifies color at individual sampling points across the whole sample. We demonstrate the utility of Colormesh using digital images of Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata), for which the evolution of color has been frequently studied. Guppies have repeatedly evolved in response to ecological differences between up‐ and downstream locations in Trinidadian rivers, resulting in extensive parallel evolution of many phenotypes. Previous studies have, for example, compared the area and quantity of discrete color (e.g., area of orange, number of black spots) between these up‐ and downstream locations neglecting spatial placement of these areas. Using the Colormesh pipeline, we show that patterns of whole‐animal color variation do not match expectations suggested by previous work. Colormesh can be deployed to address a much wider range of questions about color pattern variation than previous approaches. Colormesh is thus especially suited for analyses that seek to identify the biologically important aspects of color pattern when there are multiple competing hypotheses or even no a priori hypotheses at all.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".