MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030759894 · doi:10.3109/19401736.2010.535528

Five years of FISH-BOL: Brief status report

2011· review· en· W2030759894 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

VenueMitochondrial DNA · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsBarcodeDNA barcodingBiologySpecies nameSpecies identificationFish <Actinopterygii>Evolutionary biologyTaxonomy (biology)ZoologyFisheryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fish Barcode of Life Initiative (FISH-BOL) is a concerted global research project launched in 2005, with the goal to collect and assemble standardized DNA barcode sequences and associated voucher provenance data in a curated reference sequence library to aid the molecular identification of all fish species. This article is a detailed progress report (July 2010) on the number of fish species that have been assigned a DNA barcode. Of the approximately 31,000 currently known fish species, 25% have been processed successfully, with at least one species from 89% of all families barcoded; in this report we give a progress overview by taxonomy and geographic region. Using standard analytical protocols, differences in the barcoding completion rate between orders and families are observed, suggesting a potential PCR amplification bias. Overall, between 3 and 9% of the species analyzed failed to yield a "BARCODE compliant" sequence, depending upon how the data are filtered. When species with only a single representative specimen are included, the failure rate was 9%. This might derive from several sources such as mismatched primers and degraded DNA templates. In an attempt to account for the latter, when the analysis is restricted to species with at least two specimens examined, the observed failure rate is significantly lower (3%), suggesting that template quality is a source of concern for FISH-BOL. We, therefore, conclude that using a standard protocol with several specimens per species and PCR primer cocktails is an efficient and successful approach because failures were evenly distributed among orders and families. Only six orders with low species numbers (Pristiformes, Torpediniformes, Albuliformes, Batrachoidiformes, Gobiesociformes, and Petromyzontiformes) showed failure rates between 10 and 33%. Besides outlining an overarching approach for FISH-BOL data curation, the goal of the present article is to give guidance in directing sampling campaigns toward neglected or underrepresented families in order to complete the FISH-BOL campaign most efficiently.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.276 · 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