Planning the Human Variome Project: The Spain report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The remarkable progress in characterizing the human genome sequence, exemplified by the Human Genome Project and the HapMap Consortium, has led to the perception that knowledge and the tools (e.g., microarrays) are sufficient for many if not most biomedical research efforts. A large amount of data from diverse studies proves this perception inaccurate at best, and at worst, an impediment for further efforts to characterize the variation in the human genome. Because variation in genotype and environment are the fundamental basis to understand phenotypic variability and heritability at the population level, identifying the range of human genetic variation is crucial to the development of personalized nutrition and medicine. The Human Variome Project (HVP; http://www.humanvariomeproject.org/) was proposed initially to systematically collect mutations that cause human disease and create a cyber infrastructure to link locus specific databases (LSDB). We report here the discussions and recommendations from the 2008 HVP planning meeting held in San Feliu de Guixols, Spain, in May 2008.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".