Details are given in the Supplementary Methods and Table S7.
Assays are described in detail in the Supplementary Methods and Table S6.
Hence, we further classified the novel transcripts based on their novelty score (See Materials and Methods and Table S2).
However, Ceriodaphnia is reported as bladderwort prey in the literature9, 26, 27, which is in general agreement with our own snapshot prey analysis (see Materials & Methods and Table S1).
The mixing parameterization of equation (1) is tested against output from ten state-of-the-art models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMincludingcluding pre-industrial, historical and Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5 (RCP4.5) and 8.5 (RCP8.5) scenarios (see Methods and Table S1).
Additional file 1: Supplement methods and Table S1.
Table 11 shows the results of evaluating all classification methods and Table 12 presents the results of clustering methods.
The assessment is composed of 18 forced-choice binomial questions with the following distracter types: proximity, node-counting, similarity, none, or multiple (see "Methods" and Table 6).
Table 8 shows the accuracy of demographic prediction from questionnaire data, log data and baseline methods, and Table 9 shows the two-tailed paired t-test among these results.
From the results reported in Table 1 (STIP-based methods) and Table 2 (iDT-based methods), methods that exploit additional textural features clearly demonstrate significant improvement, as compared to their respective baseline methods.
We then calculated the sensitivity Sn*, specificity Sp* and recovery ratio RCC (see Methods and Table 1).
