Distinguishing Endogenous Retroviral LTRs from SINE Elements Using Features Extracted from Evolved Side Effect Machines
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Side effect machines produce features for classifiers that distinguish different types of DNA sequences. They have the, as yet unexploited, potential to give insight into biological features of the sequences. We introduce several innovations to the production and use of side effect machine sequence features. We compare the results of using consensus sequences and genomic sequences for training classifiers and find that more accurate results can be obtained using genomic sequences. Surprisingly, we were even able to build a classifier that distinguished consensus sequences from genomic sequences with high accuracy, suggesting that consensus sequences are not always representative of their genomic counterparts. We apply our techniques to the problem of distinguishing two types of transposable elements, solo LTRs and SINEs. Identifying these sequences is important because they affect gene expression,genome structure, and genetic diversity, and they serve as genetic markers. They are of similar length, neither codes for protein, and both have many nearly identical copies throughout the genome. Being able to efficiently and automatically distinguish them will aid efforts to improve annotations of genomes. Our approach reveals structural characteristics of the sequences of potential interest to biologists.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it