Orchestrating and sharing large multimodal data for transparent and reproducible research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproducibility is essential to open science, as there is limited relevance for findings that can not be reproduced by independent research groups, regardless of its validity. It is therefore crucial for scientists to describe their experiments in sufficient detail so they can be reproduced, scrutinized, challenged, and built upon. However, the intrinsic complexity and continuous growth of biomedical data makes it increasingly difficult to process, analyze, and share with the community in a FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) manner. To overcome these issues, we created a cloud-based platform called ORCESTRA ( orcestra.ca ), which provides a flexible framework for the reproducible processing of multimodal biomedical data. It enables processing of clinical, genomic and perturbation profiles of cancer samples through automated processing pipelines that are user-customizable. ORCESTRA creates integrated and fully documented data objects with persistent identifiers (DOI) and manages multiple dataset versions, which can be shared for future studies.
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 | 0.059 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".