MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Big Data in Biosciences

2017· other· en· W2872913067 on OpenAlex
C. B. Dean, Shelley B. Bull, Khurram Nadeem, Mark A. Wolters

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

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataData scienceComputer scienceContext (archaeology)AnalyticsWearable computerGeographyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We are in an information era when data are generated in masses: from devices that stream data in a health context, such as wearable fitness devices, to genomics data, to health exposure data from a variety of monitors that may be misaligned, and to earth observation data from satellites. The Big Data era in which we live is viewed as having the power to revolutionize society. The term big data has different meanings to different sectors: for engineers, for example, this term encompasses methods and tools for transmission of data faster, including wireless transmissions; for sociologists, it encompasses curation methods and techniques; for computer scientists, the term encompasses information management and security systems and analytics; and for statisticians, the term principally refers to data analytical techniques. This entry discusses challenges and opportunities in big data in biosciences exemplified through three important big data areas from health, environmental studies, and earth observation: human population genomics, forest fire analytics, and smoke estimation from satellite imagery.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.267 · 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