Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32201651›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Application of artificially intelligent systems for the identification of discrete fossiliferous levels.

David M Martín-Perea, Lloyd A Courtenay, M Soledad Domingo, Jorge Morales

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David M Martín-PereaPalaeobiology Department, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales - CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
Lloyd A CourtenayDepartment of Cartographic and Land Engineering, Higher Polytechnic School of Avila, University of Salamanca, Avila, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4810-2001
M Soledad DomingoSciences, Social Sciences and Mathematics Department, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Jorge MoralesPalaeobiology Department, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales - CSIC, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The separation of discrete fossiliferous levels within an archaeological or paleontological site with no clear stratigraphic horizons has historically been carried out using qualitative approaches, relying on two-dimensional transversal and longitudinal projection planes. Analyses of this type, however, can often be conditioned by subjectivity based on the perspective of the analyst. This study presents a novel use of Machine Learning algorithms for pattern recognition techniques in the automated separation and identification of fossiliferous levels. This approach can be divided into three main steps including: (1) unsupervised Machine Learning for density based clustering (2) expert-in-the-loop Collaborative Intelligence Learning for the integration of geological data followed by (3) supervised learning for the final fine-tuning of fossiliferous level models. For evaluation of these techniques, this method was tested in two Late Miocene sites of the Batallones Butte paleontological complex (Madrid, Spain). Here we show Machine Learning analyses to be a valuable tool for the processing of spatial data in an efficient and quantitative manner, successfully identifying the presence of discrete fossiliferous levels in both Batallones-3 and Batallones-10. Three discrete fossiliferous levels have been identified in Batallones-3, whereas another three have been differentiated in Batallones-10.

Indexed as

Archaeological siteArchaeostratigraphyBatallones Butte sitesMachine LearningPalaeontological sitePalaeostratigraphySpatial data

Identifiers

PMID32201651
PMCPMC7071820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.