MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168506731 · doi:10.1515/jib-2007-70

Exploring PSI-MI XML Collections Using DescribeX

2007· article· en· W2168506731 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Samavi, Mariano P. Consens, Shahan Khatchadourian, Thodoros Topaloglou

Bibliographic record

VenueBerichte aus der medizinischen Informatik und Bioinformatik/Journal of integrative bioinformatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceXML Schema EditorDocument Structure DescriptionXMLEfficient XML InterchangeXML Schema (W3C)XML validationXML databaseSchema (genetic algorithms)Streaming XMLXML frameworkData exchangeInformation retrievalDatabaseWorld Wide WebDocument type definition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary PSI-MI has been endorsed by the protein informatics community as a standard XML data exchange format for protein-protein interaction datasets. While many public databases support the standard, there is a degree of heterogeneity in the way the proposed XML schema is interpreted and instantiated by different data providers. Analysis of schema instantiation in large collections of XML data is a challenging task that is unsupported by existing tools. In this study we use DescribeX, a novel visualization technique of (semi-)structured XML formats, to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze PSI-MI XML collections at the instance level with the goal of gaining insights about schema usage and to study specific questions such as: adequacy of controlled vocabularies, detection of common instance patterns, and evolution of different data collections. Our analysis shows DescribeX enhances understanding the instance-level structure of PSI-MI data sources and is a useful tool for standards designers, software developers, and PSI-MI data providers.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBerichte aus der medizinischen Informatik und Bioinformatik/Journal of integrative bioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207