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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most frequently used tools in bioinformatics are those searching for similarities, or local alignments, between biological sequences. Since the exact dynamic programming algorithm is quadratic, linear-time heuristics such as BLAST are used. Spaced seeds are much more sensitive than the consecutive seed of BLAST and using several seeds represents the current state of the art in approximate search for biological sequences. The most important aspect is computing highly sensitive seeds. Since the problem seems hard, heuristic algorithms are used. The leading software in the common Bernoulli model is the SpEED program. FINDINGS: SpEED uses a hill climbing method based on the overlap complexity heuristic. We propose a new algorithm for this heuristic that improves its speed by over one order of magnitude. We use the new implementation to compute improved seeds for several software programs. We compute as well multiple seeds of the same weight as MegaBLAST, that greatly improve its sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Multiple spaced seeds are being successfully used in bioinformatics software programs. Enabling researchers to compute very fast high quality seeds will help expanding the range of their applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it