MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An inexpensive, automation‐friendly protocol for recovering high‐quality DNA

2006· article· en· W1605875024 on OpenAlexafffund
Natalya Ivanova, Jeremy R deWaard, Paul D. N. Hebert

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology Notes · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsOntario Genomics InstituteGenome CanadaGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsAutomationProtocol (science)DNA extractionComputer scienceEmbedded systemBiologyEngineeringMedicinePolymerase chain reactionPathologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although commercial kits are available for automated DNA extraction, ‘artisanal’ protocols are not. In this study, we present a silica‐based method that is sensitive, inexpensive and compliant with automation. The effectiveness of this protocol has now been tested on more than 5000 animal specimens with highly positive results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.011

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1,476
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Ecology NotesSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207