Theories and Applications for Sequencing Randomly Selected Clones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory is developed for the process of sequencing randomly selected large-insert clones. Genome size, library depth, clone size, and clone distribution are considered relevant properties and perfect overlap detection for contig assembly is assumed. Genome-specific and nonrandom effects are neglected. Order of magnitude analysis indicates library depth is of secondary importance compared to the other variables, especially as clone size diminishes. In such cases, the well-known Poisson coverage law is a good approximation. Parameters derived from these models are used to examine performance for the specific case of sequencing random human BAC clones. We compare coverage and redundancy rates for libraries possessing uniform and nonuniform clone distributions. Results are measured against data from map-based human-chromosome-2 sequencing. We conclude that the map-based approach outperforms random clone sequencing, except early in a project. However, simultaneous use of both strategies can be beneficial if a performance-based estimate for halting random clone sequencing is made. Results further show that the random approach yields maximum effectiveness using nonbiased rather than biased libraries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".