Benchmarking infrastructure for mutation text mining.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research work on the automatic extraction of information about mutations from texts is greatly hindered by the lack of consensus evaluation facilities and easy-to-use infrastructure for testing and benchmarking of mutation text mining systems. Results: We propose a community-oriented annotation and benchmarking infrastructure to support development, testing, benchmarking, and comparison of mutation text mining systems. The design is based on semantic standards, where RDF is used to represent the annotations, an OWL ontology provides an extensible schema for the data and SPARQL is used to compute various performance metrics, so that in many cases programming is not needed to analyze system results. While large benchmark corpora for biological entity and relation extraction are focused mostly on gene, proteins, diseases, and species, our benchmarking infrastructure fills the gap for mutation information. The core infrastructure comprises of: 1) an ontology for modelling annotations, 2) SPARQL queries for performance metrics computation, and 3) a sizeable collection of manually curated documents, that can minimally support mutation grounding and mutation impact extraction. Conclusion: This is the first example of benchmarking infrastructure for mutation text mining. It is designed for community uptake. 1
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".