Simplifying research access to genomics and health data with Library Cards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volume of genomics and health data is growing rapidly, driven by sequencing for both research and clinical use. However, under current practices, the data is fragmented into many distinct datasets, and researchers must go through a separate application process for each dataset. This is time-consuming both for the researchers and the data stewards, and it reduces the velocity of research and new discoveries that could improve human health. We propose to simplify this process, by introducing a standard Library Card that identifies and authenticates researchers across all participating datasets. Each researcher would only need to apply once to establish their bona fides as a qualified researcher, and could then use the Library Card to access a wide range of datasets that use a compatible data access policy and authentication protocol.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.115 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.034 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".