RNA STRAND: The RNA Secondary Structure and Statistical Analysis Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to access, search and analyse secondary structures of a large set of known RNA molecules is very important for deriving improved RNA energy models, for evaluating computational predictions of RNA secondary structures and for a better understanding of RNA folding. Currently there is no database that can easily provide these capabilities for almost all RNA molecules with known secondary structures. RESULTS: In this paper we describe RNA STRAND - the RNA secondary STRucture and statistical ANalysis Database, a curated database containing known secondary structures of any type and organism. Our new database provides a wide collection of known RNA secondary structures drawn from public databases, searchable and downloadable in a common format. Comprehensive statistical information on the secondary structures in our database is provided using the RNA Secondary Structure Analyser, a new tool we have developed to analyse RNA secondary structures. The information thus obtained is valuable for understanding to which extent and with which probability certain structural motifs can appear. We outline several ways in which the data provided in RNA STRAND can facilitate research on RNA structure, including the improvement of RNA energy models and evaluation of secondary structure prediction programs. In order to keep up-to-date with new RNA secondary structure experiments, we offer the necessary tools to add solved RNA secondary structures to our database and invite researchers to contribute to RNA STRAND. CONCLUSION: RNA STRAND is a carefully assembled database of trusted RNA secondary structures, with easy on-line tools for searching, analyzing and downloading user selected entries, and is publicly available at http://www.rnasoft.ca/strand.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.066 |
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".