MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138375855 · doi:10.1002/cyto.a.22018

FCS 3.1 Implementation Guidance

2012· article· en· W2138375855 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCytometry Part A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of HealthMichael Smith Health Research BCInternational Society for Advancement of Cytometry
KeywordsSoftwareComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Software engineeringWorld Wide WebData scienceOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Flow Cytometry Standard (FCS) format was developed back in 1984. Since then, FCS became the standard file format supported by all flow cytometry software and hardware vendors. Over the years, updates were incorporated to adapt to technological advancements in both flow cytometry and computing technologies. However, flexibility in how data may be stored in FCS has led to implementation difficulties for instrument vendors and third party software developers. In this technical note, we are providing implementation guidance and examples related to FCS 3.1, the latest version of the standard. By publishing this text, we intend to prevent potential compatibility issues that could be faced when implementing the FCS spillover and preferred display keywords that have arisen during discussions among some implementers.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · 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