baRcodeR with PyTrackDat: Open-source labelling and tracking of biological samples for repeatable science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Repeatable experiments with accurate data collection and reproducible analyses are fundamental to the scientific method but may be difficult to achieve in practice. Several flexible, open-source tools developed for the R and Python coding environments aid the reproducibility of data wrangling and analysis in scientific research. In contrast, analogous tools are generally lacking for earlier stages, such as systematic labelling and processing of field samples with hierarchical structure (e.g. time points of individuals from multiple lines or populations) or curating heterogenous data collected by different researchers over several years. Such tools are critical for modern research given trends toward globally distributed collaborators using higher-throughput technologies. As a step toward improving repeatability of methods for the collection of biological samples, and curation of biological data, we introduce the R package baRcodeR and the PyTrackDat pipeline in Python. The baRcodeR package provides tools for generating biologically informative, hierarchical labels with digitally encoded 2D barcodes that can be printed and scanned using low-cost commercial hardware. The PyTrackDat pipeline integrates with baRcodeR output to build a web interface for sample management and tracking along with data collection and curation. We briefly describe the application of principles from baRcodeR and PyTrackDat in three large research projects, which demonstrate their value to (i) help document sampling methods, (ii) facilitate collaboration and (iii) reduce opportunities for human errors and omissions that could otherwise propagate through downstream data analysis to compromise biological inference.
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.036 |
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".