MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884300026 · doi:10.1002/aps3.1164

flowPloidy: An R package for genome size and ploidy assessment of flow cytometry data

2018· article· en· W2884300026 on OpenAlex
Tyler Smith, Paul Kron, Sara L. Martin

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

VenueApplications in Plant Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowHistogramGenome sizeBiologyGenomeSoftwareR packageComputer sciencePloidyData miningComputational biologyArtificial intelligenceDatabaseGeneticsComputational science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Despite advantages in terms of reproducibility, histogram analysis based on nonlinear regression is rarely used in genome size assessments in plant biology. This is due in part to the lack of a freely available program to implement the procedure. We have developed such a program, the R package flowPloidy. METHODS AND RESULTS: flowPloidy builds on the existing statistical tools provided with the R environment. This base provides tools for importing flow cytometry data, fitting nonlinear regressions, and interactively visualizing data. flowPloidy adds tools for building flow cytometry models, fitting the models to histogram data, and producing visual and tabular summaries of the results. CONCLUSIONS: flowPloidy fills an important gap in the study of plant genome size. This package will enable plant scientists to apply a more powerful statistical technique for assessing genome size. flowPloidy improves on existing software options by providing a no-cost workflow streamlined for genome size and ploidy determination.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.252 · 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