MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Poxvirus Orthologous Clusters (POCs)

2002· article· en· W2138334294 on OpenAlexafffund
Angelika Ehlers, John D. Osborne, Stephanie Slack, Rachel L. Roper, Chris Upton

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGenomeComputer scienceGeneComputational biologyInterface (matter)BiologyJavaGeneticsProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Summary: Poxvirus Orthologous Clusters (POCs) is a JAVA client–server application which accesses an updated database containing all complete poxvirus genomes; it automatically groups orthologous genes into families based on BLASTP scores for assessment by a human database curator. POCs has a user-friendly interface permitting complex SQL queries to retrieve interesting groups of DNA and protein sequences as well as gene families for subsequent interrogation by a variety of integrated tools: BLASTP, BLASTX, TBLASTN, Jalview (multiple alignment), Dotlet (Dotplot), Laj (local alignment), and NAP (nucleotide to amino acid alignment). Availability: Direct access to the POCs database via the GENOME ANALYSIS link at the Poxvirus Bioinformatics Resource: http://www.poxvirus.org. The Software is available for download via HTTP at: http://athena.bioc.uvic.ca/pbr/POCs/pocs.html. Contact: cupton@uvic.ca Supplementary Information: Installation instructions, the User's Manual, screenshots, and examples are available at the POCs home page http://athena.bioc.uvic.ca/pbr/POCs/pocs.html. The software is free for non-commercial applications. For information on poxviruses see http://www.poxvirus.org. * To whom correspondence should be addressed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations66
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207