MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developing data interoperability using standards: A wheat community use case

2017· preprint· en· W2765375876 on OpenAlexaff
Windpouire Esther Dzale Yeumo, Michaël Alaux, Elizabeth Arnaud, Sophie Aubin, Ute Baumann, Patrice Buche, Laurel Cooper, Hanna Ćwiek‐Kupczyńska, Robert Davey, Richard Fulss, Clément Jonquet, Marie‐Angélique Laporte, Pierre Larmande, Cyril Pommier, Vassilis Protonotarıos, Carmen Reverté, Rosemary Shrestha, Imma Subirats, Aravind Venkatesan, Alex Whan, Hadi Quesneville

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaHorizon 2020Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilEuropean CommissionAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInteroperabilityMetadataComputer scienceSemantic interoperabilityData sharingData scienceOntologyData exchangeBest practiceWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present a joint effort of the wheat research community, along with data and ontology experts, to develop wheat data interoperability guidelines. Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems and devices to cooperate and exchange data, and interpret that shared information. Interoperability is a growing concern to the wheat scientific community, and agriculture in general, as the need to interpret the deluge of data obtained through high-throughput technologies grows. Agreeing on common data formats, metadata, and vocabulary standards is an important step to obtain the required data interoperability level in order to add value by encouraging data sharing, and subsequently facilitate the extraction of new information from existing and new datasets. During a period of more than 18 months, the RDA Wheat Data Interoperability Working Group (WDI-WG) surveyed the wheat research community about the use of data standards, then discussed and selected a set of recommendations based on consensual criteria. The recommendations promote standards for data types identified by the wheat research community as the most important for the coming years: nucleotide sequence variants, genome annotations, phenotypes, germplasm data, gene expression experiments, and physical maps. For each of these data types, the guidelines recommend best practices in terms of use of data formats, metadata standards and ontologies. In addition to the best practices, the guidelines provide examples of tools and implementations that are likely to facilitate the adoption of the recommendations. To maximize the adoption of the recommendations, the WDI-WG used a community-driven approach that involved the wheat research community from the start, took into account their needs and practices, and provided them with a framework to keep the recommendations up to date. We also report this approach's potential to be generalizable to other (agricultural) domains.

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)0.115
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1150.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0160.034
Open science0.0050.019
Research integrity0.0110.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.542
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.022 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207