MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562101402

DNA Barcoding as an Educational Tool: Case Studies in Insect Biodiversity and Seafood Identification

2013· article· en· W1562101402 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda M. Naaum, Andrew J. Frewin, Robert Hanner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachDNA barcodingIdentification (biology)BiodiversityBiologyData scienceBarcodeGraduate studentsWorld Wide WebComputer scienceEvolutionary biologyEcologyBusinessMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High school students may find it difficult to understand the application of molecular biology laboratory methods like gel electrophoresis, PCR and DNA sequencing and teaching these concepts can be challenging. Demonstrating a link between protocols and applied questions of socio-economic importance can make these techniques more accessible and more interesting, facilitating science and technology learning objectives. This article summarizes two case studies conducted to engage students in biodiversity and molecular biology through applications of DNA barcoding. These projects were conducted in collaboration with a research lab at the University of Guelph in Canada and with Let’s Talk Science, a not-for profit organization dedicated to science outreach. Two parallel case studies were undertaken to illustrate the implementation of DNA barcoding by high school teachers to provide a service learning opportunity for students. By participating in these case studies, students learned about DNA barcoding and the associated laboratory and bioinformatics tools as a way to identify food fraud at local restaurants and supermarkets and to explore insect biodiversity of their high-school campuses. The resources used in both case studies have been deposited within available online portals to allow for their continued use and improvement when teaching concepts in molecular biology through applications of DNA barcoding.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207