MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113971166 · doi:10.1016/j.jala.2009.07.004

LINA: A Laboratory Inventory System for Oligonucleotides, Microbial Strains, and Cell Lines

2010· article· en· W2113971166 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed F. Yousef, Ibrahim Baggili, Gail J. Bartlett, Michael D. Kane, Joe S. Mymryk

Bibliographic record

VenueJALA Journal of the Association for Laboratory Automation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIdentifierComputer scienceTable (database)DatabaseRelational databaseIdentification (biology)SoftwareWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalOperating systemBiologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present the Laboratory Inventory Network Application (LINA), a software system that assists research laboratories in keeping track of their collections of biologically relevant materials. This open source application uses relational Microsoft Access database technology as a back end and a Microsoft .NET application as a front end. Preconstructed table templates are provided that contain standardized and customizable data fields. As new samples are added to the inventory, each is provided with a unique laboratory identifier, which is assigned automatically and sequentially, allowing rapid retrieval when a given reagent is required. The LINA contains a number of useful search tools including a general search, which allows database searches using up to four user-defined criteria. The LINA represents an easily implemented and useful organizational tool for biological laboratories with large numbers of strains, clones, or other reagents.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: Software
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.024

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJALA Journal of the Association for Laboratory AutomationSame topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207