MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215287719 · doi:10.1038/s41592-021-01327-9

Towards community-driven metadata standards for light microscopy: tiered specifications extending the OME model.

2021· article· en· W3215287719 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Drug AbuseNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMetadataQuality (philosophy)Scale (ratio)Control (management)Data elementData quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rigorous record-keeping and quality control are required to ensure the quality, reproducibility and value of imaging data. The 4DN Initiative and BINA here propose light Microscopy Metadata specifications that extend the OME data model, scale with experimental intent and complexity, and make it possible for scientists to create comprehensive records of imaging experiments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0140.026
Open science0.0080.018
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207