Scinapse 2019-2020 Undergraduate Science Case Competition: Augmented Biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Scinapse Undergraduate Science Case Competition (USCC) provides an opportunity for undergraduate students to experience the development of a novel research proposal. A case is presented to all participants and, using in-depth literature search (publications, reports, studies and published writings), students connect and pinpoint key elements allowing them to develop a hypothesis in support of the case in question. Participants also develop a methodology which will test the validity of their hypothesis. This year's case topic was inspired by recent scientific advances in the field of biological augmentation. This topic provided an opportunity for participants to create research proposals exploring potential applications of gene editing, biomedical engineering, virtual reality, and more. In teams of 2-4, undergraduate students tackled the case and provided novel research ideas that may hold the key to addressing current global issues, such as those relating to health care, climate change, and food security. In total, the 2019-2020 USCC attracted 731 undergraduate students from 11 universities across Canada and the United States. The top 10% of written submissions are highlighted in this abstract booklet.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.019 |
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".