MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462198990 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.44098.v1

Panel A: The Table denotes the frequencies, using PHASE, of haplotypes using SNPs having a MAF higher than 5% estimated in controls

2011· article· en· W2462198990 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francine Durocher, Yvan Labrie, Soucy Penny, Sinilnikova Olga, Damian Labuda, Paul Bessette, Jocelyne Chiquette, Rachel Laframboise, Jean Lépine, Bernard Lespérance, Geneviève Ouellette, Pichette Roxane, Marie Plante, Simard Jacques

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaplotypeTable (database)Single-nucleotide polymorphismHaplotype estimationStatisticsGeneticsComputer scienceMathematicsData miningBiologyGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copyright information:Taken from "Mutation analysis and characterization of ATR sequence variants in breast cancer cases from high-risk French Canadian breast/ovarian cancer families"BMC Cancer 2006;6():230-230.Published online 29 Sep 2006PMCID:PMC1599749. Panel B: Haplotype blocks predicted using SNPs identified in control series showing a MAF higher than 5% (17 SNPs). tSNPs identified on a block-by-block basis are denoted with an asterisk (*) above the SNP number. Population haplotype frequencies are displayed on the right of each haplotype combination while the level of recombination is displayed above the connections between two blocks. Thick connections represent haplotypes with frequencies higher than 10% while frequencies below 10% are represented by thin lines.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2960.027

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.049 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207