MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104955514 · doi:10.1101/gr.2171704

Dynamic Building of a BAC Clone Tiling Path for the Rat Genome Sequencing Project

2004· article· en· W2104955514 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rui Chen, Erica Sodergren, George M. Weinstock, Richard A. Gibbs

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Human Genome Research InstituteBC Cancer AgencyNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyclone (Java method)GenomeGeneticsWhole genome sequencingSequence assemblyComputational biologyShotgun sequencingGenome projectReference genomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CLONEPICKER is a software pipeline that integrates sequence data with BAC clone fingerprints to dynamically select a minimal overlapping clone set covering the whole genome. In the Rat Genome Sequencing Project (RGSP), a hybrid strategy of "clone by clone" and "whole genome shotgun" approaches was used to maximize the merits of both approaches. Like the "clone by clone" method, one key challenge for this strategy was to select a low-redundancy clone set that covered the whole genome while the sequencing is in progress. The CLONEPICKER pipeline met this challenge using restriction enzyme fingerprint data, BAC end sequence data, and sequences generated from individual BAC clones as well as WGS reads. In the RGSP, an average of 7.5 clones was identified from each side of a seed clone, and the minimal overlapping clones were reliably selected. Combined with the assembled BAC fingerprint map, a set of BAC clones that covered >97% of the genome was identified and used in the RGSP.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207