Reactome and ORCID—fine-grained credit attribution for community curation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactome is a manually curated, open-source, open-data knowledge base of biomolecular pathways. Reactome has always provided clear credit attribution for authors, curators and reviewers through fine-grained annotation of all three roles at the reaction and pathway level. These data are visible in the web interface and provided through the various data download formats. To enhance visibility and credit attribution for the work of authors, curators and reviewers, and to provide additional opportunities for Reactome community engagement, we have implemented key changes to Reactome: contributor names are now fully searchable in the web interface, and contributors can 'claim' their contributions to their ORCID profile with a few clicks. In addition, we are reaching out to domain experts to request their help in reviewing and editing Reactome pathways through a new 'Contribution' section, highlighting pathways which are awaiting community review. Database URL: https://reactome.org.
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 | 0.060 | 0.305 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.695 | 0.506 |
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".