Suggested actions from the Melbourne HVP Information Seminar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Human Variome Project (HVP; www.humanvariomeproject.org) was initiated at a meeting in June 2006 and addressed the problems of collecting genetic information and generated 96 recommendations (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n4/full/ng0407-423.html) to overcome these, with the focus on Mendelian disease. A considerable number of projects have been added, to those that have been ongoing for a number of years, since that meeting. Also, a planning meeting is to be held May 25-29, 2008 in Spain (http://www.humanvariomeproject.org/HVP2008/).A dramatic boost has been given to the HVP by the preparedness and action of the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours (InSiGHT; www.insight-group.org), to, in order to improve their own informatics systems for dealing with inherited colon cancer, set up a pilot system for collection and databasing mutation and phenotype information, i.e. to act as pilot for the HVP. This is then intended to be transferred to other genes and countries. Much relevant activity in this project is being led from and is based in Melbourne.This meeting in Melbourne has been conceived to review the current local situation and plans for the future. We are privileged that Myles Axton, Editor of Nature Genetics, a strong supporter of the HVP (see April 2007 Nature Genetics Editorial) and who has some ideas in the area (see August 2007 Nature Genetics Editorial) agreed to be keynote speaker.We proposed that the output of this meeting be published and, with permission, the abstracts and presentations placed on the website (www.humanvariomeproject.org/?p=Melbourne_Meeting). We also hope it will inform the May HVP Planning Meeting.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.304 | 0.153 |
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".