MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884047060 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1644947

Workshop Summary: “DNA Testing: Assessing the State of the Science”

2018· article· en· W2884047060 on OpenAlex
PN Brown, Nicole de Paula, JM Betz, Robert Hanner

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

VenuePlanta Medica International Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDna testingAuthentication (law)Identification (biology)Computer scienceTest (biology)Data scienceComputer securityBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA testing to authenticate ingredients in foods, dietary supplements, and natural health products is relatively new and far less established than its use in forensic investigations, medical diagnostics, and paternity testing. As a result, there is a general lack of understanding about the complexities of the test methods, especially related to finished dietary supplements containing botanical extracts. This lack of awareness has resulted in misuse of technologies and misinterpretation of test results. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss the development and mechanics of DNA authentication and its use in identification as well as developments in DNA assays and data interpretation.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.326 · 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