MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W216063383 · doi:10.1186/1939-8433-5-3

Nomenclature report on rice WRKY's - Conflict regarding gene names and its solution

2012· article· en· W216063383 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Gene Expression Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityHuazhong Agricultural UniversityKyung Hee UniversityChinese Academy of SciencesOhio State UniversityChina Agricultural UniversityOregon State UniversityMichigan State University
KeywordsNomenclatureWRKY protein domainGene nomenclatureGeneBiologyGeneticsGenomeGene familyGene duplicationBotanyTaxonomy (biology)Gene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since whole genome sequences of rice were made publically accessible, the number of articles on new rice genes has increased remarkably. The Committee on Gene Symbolization, Nomenclature and Linkage (CGSNL) of the Rice Genetics Cooperative published the gene nomenclature system for rice and encouraged researchers to follow the rules before publishing their results. The CGSNL provides an on-line registration system for newly identified rice genes to prevent conflicts and/or duplication of gene name in journal articles. FINDINGS: Recently, the CGSNL surveyed genes in the rice WRKY family in published journal articles and found several duplicated gene names. CONCLUSIONS: To discuss and resolve inconsistencies in WRKY gene nomenclature, the rice WRKY working group was established and redefined the nomenclature. This report announces the conclusion.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations241
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRiceSame topicPlant Gene Expression AnalysisFrench-language works237,207