The MNI data-sharing and processing ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroimaging has been facing a data deluge characterized by the exponential growth of both raw and processed data. As a result, mining the massive quantities of digital data collected in these studies offers unprecedented opportunities and has become paramount for today's research. As the neuroimaging community enters the world of “Big Data”, there has been a concerted push for enhanced sharing initiatives, whether within a multisite study, across studies, or federated and shared publicly. This article will focus on the database and processing ecosystem developed at the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) to support multicenter data acquisition both nationally and internationally, create database repositories, facilitate data-sharing initiatives, and leverage existing software toolkits for large-scale data processing. • We outline the MNI data-sharing ecosystem, which include the LORIS and CBRAIN platforms. • We detail what tools and pipelines these platforms use (e.g., CIVET, MINC, FSL). • A step-by-step delineation of the MNI ecosystem is given from data acquisition to dissemination. • Five examples of public data-sharing repositories from the MNI ecosystem services are outlined. • We discuss a number of important data-sharing challenges and considerations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".