MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prediction of Genomic Functional Elements

2006· review· en· W2166578873 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomeComputational biologyBiologyGeneGene predictionGeneticsFunction (biology)Gene AnnotationAnnotationComparative genomicsGenomicsGenome project

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the number of sequenced genomes increases, the ability to deduce genome function becomes increasingly salient. For many genome sequences, the only annotation that will be available for the foreseeable future will be based on computational predictions and comparisons with functional elements in related species. Here we discuss computational approaches for automated genome-wide annotation of functional elements in mammalian genomes. These include methods for ab initio and comparative gene-structure predictions. Gene features such as intron splice sites, 3' untranslated regions, promoters, and cis-regulatory elements are discussed, as is a novel method for predicting DNaseI hypersensitive sites. Recent methodologies for predicting noncoding RNA genes, including microRNA genes and their targets, are also reviewed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.257 · 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