MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Next‐generation sequencing technologies for environmental DNA research

2012· review· en· W2132543522 on OpenAlexafffund
Shadi Shokralla, Jennifer L. Spall, Joel F. Gibson, Mehrdad Hajibabaei

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersGovernment of CanadaOntario Genomics InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsDNA sequencingBiologyEnvironmental DNAPaceEmerging technologiesComputational biologyData scienceEcologyComputer scienceDNAGeneticsBiodiversityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2005, advances in next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized biological science. The analysis of environmental DNA through the use of specific gene markers such as species-specific DNA barcodes has been a key application of next-generation sequencing technologies in ecological and environmental research. Access to parallel, massive amounts of sequencing data, as well as subsequent improvements in read length and throughput of different sequencing platforms, is leading to a better representation of sample diversity at a reasonable cost. New technologies are being developed rapidly and have the potential to dramatically accelerate ecological and environmental research. The fast pace of development and improvements in next-generation sequencing technologies can reflect on broader and more robust applications in environmental DNA research. Here, we review the advantages and limitations of current next-generation sequencing technologies in regard to their application for environmental DNA analysis.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.152 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations940
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207