MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417430552 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-752-1:143

High-Throughput BAC Fingerprinting

2004· article· en· W2417430552 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline E. Schein, Tamara A. Kucaba, Mandeep Sekhon, Duane E. Smailus, R Waterston, Marco A. Marra

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
KeywordsContigInsert (composites)GenomeBiologyComputational biologyGeneticsclone (Java method)DNAEngineeringGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes a nonradioactive, agarose gel-based, high-throughput DNA restriction digest fingerprinting methodology first described by Marra et al. ( 1 ) for use in the construction of high-resolution physical maps from low-copynumber, large-insert clones. The procedure is robust and allows for the recovery of clone insert size information. Initially used to construct sequence tag site (STS)-based contigs ( 1 ), the methodology has also been applied to whole-genome, random-clone strategies that have resulted in the construction of high-resolution, sequence-ready physical maps of the genomes of Arabidopsis thaliana ( 2 , 3 ), human ( 4 , 5 ), Caenorhabditis briggsae ( 6 ), and Cryptococcus neoformans ( 7 ). The methodology is currently being employed in the construction of physical maps for several other large, mammalian genomes, such as those of mouse ( 8 ), rat and bovine. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.013

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207