MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969592341 · doi:10.1002/pmic.200700917

Frontiers in glycomics: Bioinformatics and biomarkers in disease An NIH White Paper prepared from discussions by the focus groups at a workshop on the NIH campus, Bethesda MD (September 11–13, 2006)

2007· article· en· W1969592341 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePROTEOMICS · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsPrevention of Organ Failure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycomicsLibrary scienceAdvisory committeeEngineering ethicsData scienceMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key issues relating to glycomics research were discussed after the workshop entitled "Frontiers in Glycomics: Bioinformatics and Biomarkers in Disease" by two focus groups nominated by the organizers. The groups focused on two themes: (i) glycomics as the new frontier for the discovery of biomarkers of disease and (ii) requirements for the development of informatics for glycomics and glycobiology. The mandate of the focus groups was to build consensus on these issues and develop a summary of findings and recommendations for presentation to the NIH and the greater scientific community. A list of scientific priorities was developed, presented, and discussed at the workshops. Additional suggestions were solicited from workshop participants and collected using the workshop mailing list. The results are summarized in this White Paper, authored by the co-chairs of the focus groups.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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