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 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

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.095
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