Classifying organisms and artefacts by their outline shapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We often wish to classify objects by their shapes. Indeed, the study of shapes is an important part of many scientific fields, such as evolutionary biology, structural biology, image processing and archaeology. However, mathematical shape spaces are rather complicated and nonlinear. The most widely used methods of shape analysis, geometric morphometrics, treat the shapes as sets of points. Diffeomorphic methods consider the underlying curve rather than points, but have rarely been applied to real-world problems. Using a machine classifier, we tested the ability of several of these methods to describe and classify the shapes of a variety of organic and man-made objects. We find that one method, based on square-root velocity functions (SRVFs), outperforms all others, including a standard geometric morphometric method (eigenshapes), and that it is also superior to human experts using shape alone. When the SRVF approach is constrained to take account of homologous landmarks it can accurately classify objects of very different shapes. The SRVF method identifies a shortest path between shapes, and we show that this can be used to estimate the shapes of intermediate steps in evolutionary series. Diffeomorphic shape analysis methods, we conclude, now provide practical and effective solutions to many shape description and classification problems in the natural and human sciences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".