MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559993150 · doi:10.1038/ismej.2016.168

Strategies to improve reference databases for soil microbiomes

2016· article· en· W2559993150 on OpenAlexaff
Jinlyung Choi, Fan Yang, Ramūnas Stepanauskas, Erick Cardenas, Aaron Garoutte, Ryan J. Williams, Jared Flater, James M. Tiedje, Kirsten Hofmockel, Brian Gelder, Adina Howe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe ISME Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryU.S. Department of EnergyBiological and Environmental ResearchOffice of ScienceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyMicrobiomeComputational biologyDatabaseBioinformaticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbial populations in the soil are critical in our lives. The soil microbiome helps to grow our food, nourishing and protecting plants, while also providing important ecological services such as erosion protection, water filtration and climate regulation. We are increasingly aware of the tremendous microbial diversity that has a role in soil heath; yet, despite significant efforts to isolate microbes from the soil, we have accessed only a small fraction of its biodiversity. Even with novel cell isolation techniques, <1–50% of soil species have been cultivated ( Janssen et al., 2002 ; Van Pham and Kim, 2012 ). Metagenomic sequencing has accelerated our access to environmental microbes, allowing us to characterize soil communities without the need to first cultivate isolates. However, our ability to annotate and characterize the retrieved genes is dependent on the availability of informative reference gene or genome databases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations147
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe ISME JournalSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207