MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789509918 · doi:10.1017/s1551929500055206

Fostering LIMS Development Through Open Standards Part II - Ontologies and Business Process

2006· article· en· W2789509918 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy Today · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Process (computing)Work (physics)EngineeringComputer scienceEngineering managementSoftware engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This is the second in the series of short articles about Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS). This installment will focus on two issues - looking at ontologies and at business process design. The goal is to demonstrate how LIMS is really a combination of several capabilities, and that although each capability should be looked at separately, they ultimately must all work together as seamlessly as possible. Before diving in, I would like to thank Dr. Q. C. Yu, the director of our Biomedical Imaging Facility here in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at Penn http://www.med.upenn.edu/bmcrc/morph/?morph for his assistance, encouragement, and sponsorship of my participation in the Honolulu conference.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.310 · 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