Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progress made in applying agent systems to molecular computational biology is reviewed and strategies by which to exploit agent technology to greater advantage are investigated. Communities of software agents could play an important role in helping genome scientists design reagents for future research. The advent of genome sequencing in cattle and swine increases the complexity of data analysis required to conduct research in livestock genomics. Databases are always expanding and semantic differences among data are common. Agent platforms have been developed to deal with generic issues such as agent communication, life cycle management and advertisement of services (white and yellow pages). This frees computational biologists from the drudgery of having to re-invent the wheel on these common chores, giving them more time to focus on biology and bioinformatics. Agent platforms that comply with the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) standards are able to interoperate. In other words, agents developed on different platforms can communicate and cooperate with one another if domain-specific higher-level communication protocol details are agreed upon between different agent developers. Many software agent platforms are peer-to-peer, which means that even if some of the agents and data repositories are temporarily unavailable, a subset of the goals of the system can still be met. Past use of software agents in bioinformatics indicates that an agent approach should prove fruitful. Examination of current problems in bioinformatics indicates that existing agent platforms should be adaptable to novel situations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".