MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973196970 · doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1794-0

Reproducible biomedical benchmarking in the cloud: lessons from crowd-sourced data challenges

2019· letter· en· W2973196970 on OpenAlex

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

VenueGenome biology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteInstituto Tecnológico de Costa RicaUniversity of California, Santa Cruz
KeywordsBenchmarkingCloud computingData scienceComputer scienceSoftwareVirtualizationKey (lock)Data sharingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Challenges are achieving broad acceptance for addressing many biomedical questions and enabling tool assessment. But ensuring that the methods evaluated are reproducible and reusable is complicated by the diversity of software architectures, input and output file formats, and computing environments. To mitigate these problems, some challenges have leveraged new virtualization and compute methods, requiring participants to submit cloud-ready software packages. We review recent data challenges with innovative approaches to model reproducibility and data sharing, and outline key lessons for improving quantitative biomedical data analysis through crowd-sourced benchmarking challenges.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0130.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.472
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.030 · 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