Web-Queryable Large-Scale Data Sets for Hypothesis Generation in Plant Biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The approaching end of the 21st century's first decade marks an exciting time for plant biology. Several National Science Foundation Arabidopsis 2010 Projects will conclude, and whether or not the stated goal of the National Science Foundation 2010 Program-to determine the function of 25,000 Arabidopsis genes by 2010-is reached, these projects and others in a similar vein, such as those performed by the AtGenExpress Consortium and various plant genome sequencing initiatives, have generated important and unprecedented large-scale data sets. While providing significant biological insights for the individual laboratories that generated them, these data sets, in conjunction with the appropriate tools, are also permitting plant biologists worldwide to gain new insights into their own biological systems of interest, often at a mouse click through a Web browser. This review provides an overview of several such genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data sets and describes Web-based tools for querying them in the context of hypothesis generation for plant biology. We provide five biological examples of how such tools and data sets have been used to provide biological insight.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".