Orchestrating a community-developed computational workshop and accompanying training materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of bioinformatics, computational biology, and data science in biomedical research continues to grow, driving a need for effective instruction and education. A workshop setting, with lectures and guided hands-on tutorials, is a common approach to teaching practical computational and analytical methods. Here, we detail the process we used to produce high-quality, community-authored educational materials that are available for public consumption and reuse. The coordinated efforts of 17 authors over 10 weeks resulted in 15 workshops available as a website and as a 388-page electronic book. We describe how we utilized cloud infrastructure, GitHub, and a literate programming approach to robustly deliver hands-on tutorials to participants of the annual Bioconductor conference. The scripts, raw and published workshop materials, and cloud machine image are all openly available. Our approach uses free services and software and can be adapted by workshop organizers and authors in other contests with appropriate technical backgrounds.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.166 | 0.103 |
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".