MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031010945 · doi:10.1107/s0907444908028059

Establishing a training set through the visual analysis of crystallization trials. Part II: crystal examples

2008· article· en· W2031010945 on OpenAlexaff
Edward H. Snell, Angela Lauricella, Stephen A. Potter, Joseph R. Luft, Stacey Gulde, Robert J. Collins, Geoff Franks, Michael G. Malkowski, Christian Cumbaa, Igor Jurišica, George T. DeTitta

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEnzyme Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsCrystallizationSet (abstract data type)Crystal (programming language)Complement (music)Data setGenomicsTraining setComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCrystallographyBiologyChemistryGenomeEngineeringGeneBiochemistryChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the automated image analysis of crystallization experiments, representative examples of outcomes can be obtained rapidly. However, while the outcomes appear to be diverse, the number of crystalline outcomes can be small. To complement a training set from the visual observation of 147 456 crystallization outcomes, a set of crystal images was produced from 106 and 163 macromolecules under study for the North East Structural Genomics Consortium (NESG) and Structural Genomics of Pathogenic Protozoa (SGPP) groups, respectively. These crystal images have been combined with the initial training set. A description of the crystal-enriched data set and a preliminary analysis of outcomes from the data are described.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section D Biological CrystallographySame topicEnzyme Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207