MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165184089 · doi:10.1007/bf03192360

Local DNA sequence alignment in a cluster of workstations: Algorithms and tools

2004· article· en· W2165184089 on OpenAlexaff
Alba Cristina Magalhães Alves de Melo, Maria Emília M. T. Walter, Renata Cristina Faray Melo, Marcelo N. P. Santana, Rodolfo Bezerra Batista

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Brazilian Computer Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicsParallel computingWorkstationScope (computer science)SoftwareSequence (biology)ScalabilityOverhead (engineering)Shared memoryDistributed memoryDistributed shared memorySynchronization (alternating current)Distributed computingMemory managementOverlayProgramming languageUniform memory accessOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Distributed Shared Memory systems allow the use of the shared memory programming paradigm in distributed architectures where no physically shared memory exist. Scope consistent software DSMs provide a relaxed memory model that reduces the coherence overhead by ensuring consistency only at synchronization operations, on a per-lock basis. Much of the work in DSM systems is validated by benchmarks and there are only a few examples of real parallel applications running on DSM systems. Sequence comparison is a basic operation in DNA sequencing projects, and most of sequence comparison methods used are based on heuristics, that are faster but do not produce optimal alignments. Recently, many organisms had their DNA entirely sequenced, and this reality presents the need for comparing long DNA sequences, which is a challenging task due to its high demands for computational power and memory. In this article, we present and evaluate a parallelization strategy for implementing a sequence alignment algorithm for long sequences. This strategy was implemented in JIAJIA, a scope consistent software DSM system. Our results on an eight-machine cluster presented good speedups, showing that our parallelization strategy and programming support were appropriate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Brazilian Computer SocietySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207