MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607390459 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btx213

BioCIDER: a Contextualisation InDEx for biological Resources discovery

2017· article· en· W2607390459 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Horro, Martin L. Cook, Teresa K. Attwood, Michelle D. Brazas, John M. Hancock, Patricia M. Palagi, Manuel Corpas, Rafael C. Jiménez

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesEuropean Commission
KeywordsContextualizationDocumentationComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSource codeIndex (typography)Code (set theory)Open sourceSoftwareOpen source softwareData scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: The vast, uncoordinated proliferation of bioinformatics resources (databases, software tools, training materials etc.) makes it difficult for users to find them. To facilitate their discovery, various services are being developed to collect such resources into registries. We have developed BioCIDER, which, rather like online shopping 'recommendations', provides a contextualization index to help identify biological resources relevant to the content of the sites in which it is embedded. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: BioCIDER (www.biocider.org) is an open-source platform. Documentation is available online (https://goo.gl/Klc51G), and source code is freely available via GitHub (https://github.com/BioCIDER). The BioJS widget that enables websites to embed contextualization is available from the BioJS registry (http://biojs.io/). All code is released under an MIT licence. CONTACT: carlos.horro@earlham.ac.uk or rafael.jimenez@elixir-europe.org or manuel@repositive.io.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207