Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This special issue contains the papers accepted for presentation at the Sixteenth ISMB Conference (http://www.iscb.org/ismb2008/). The ‘Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology’ conference took place in Toronto, Canada from July 19–July 23, 2008. The papers contained in this volume are a selection of the 287 papers submitted to the conference. The papers were organized in 10 areas edited by two scientists. Half of Area Chairs were new as ISMB editors (see Table 1). In contrast with the previous years we decided to join the ‘Protein Structure’ and ‘Protein Function’ areas. aNew Area Chair this year. The Area Chairs were responsible for selecting the member of the Program Committee that comprised of more than 300 reviewers who were assisted by a sizeable number of sub-reviewers. Most papers received three reviews and many of them four or more reports. There was an intense discussion between referees fostered by the area chairs. In a first round of evaluation, 224 papers were selected for rejection, 32 for acceptance and 31 as undecided. The papers classified for potential acceptance and those classified as undecided were revised by the Conference Chairs and by the Area Chairs, and most of them were referred again to the referees, with additional Area Editors’ comments. The phone conference confirmed the selection of 34 papers and reserved another 15 for additional discussion, in most cases by obtaining new reports or additional editorial advice in light of previous comments. For all the papers in which the referee comments might have confused the authors, editorial comments explaining the basic reasons for the rejection of the papers were introduced. In total, 45 papers were finally accepted, and four more accepted after compulsory revision. Unfortunately, one of these 49 accepted papers was withdrawn by the authors during the production phase. We are happy to say that we have received a single rebuttal letter from the 224 submissions. We truly believe that Area Editors and Referees made a consistent effort to increase the quality of the referee process by selecting only papers of scientific excellence in their area. The selected papers have a balance between the novelty of the methods and the significance of their contribution to the corresponding areas of biology, as well as being of general interest for the conference. After such a large evaluation effort it is difficult to imagine that the quality of the conference can be further improved by additional evaluation efforts. In our opinion the only way to produce this desired quality transition, would be to introduce a second round of evaluation, a topic that is being discussed for ISMB09. The final acceptance rate was 17.1%, a ratio similar to previous year's (15.8% in 2007). The corresponding authors of submitted papers came from 26 countries, 244 authors were from North America, 104 from Europe and Israel, 51 from Asia, 2 from South America and 5 from Australia. We expect the conference to be a scientific success and a solid contribution to the role of ISCB and its contribution to Molecular Biology and Biomedicine. We would like to thank the Area Chairs and reviewers for their effort, dedication and quality of their professional work; to Thomas Lengauer and Mario Albretch for sharing their invaluable experience in ISMB-ECCB07, Andrei Voronkov for technical support with the EasyChair system, the team at Oxford Journals for proof-setting the papers; the Conference Chairs, Burkhard Rost, Michal Linial , Jill Mesirov for their continuous support, and Steven Leard for helping us to deal with the all kind of issues. Alfonso Valencia (ISMB Paper Selection Chair) Ildefonso Cases (Co-Chair)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».