An Introduction to the Benchmarking and Publications for Non-Targeted Analysis Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-targeted analysis (NTA) encompasses a rapidly evolving set of mass spectrometry techniques aimed at characterizing the chemical composition of complex samples, identifying unknown compounds, and/or classifying samples, without prior knowledge regarding the chemical content of the samples. Recent advances in NTA are the result of improved and more accessible instrumentation for data generation and analysis tools for data evaluation and interpretation. As researchers continue to develop NTA approaches in various scientific fields, there is a growing need to identify, disseminate, and adopt community-wide method reporting guidelines. In 2018, NTA researchers formed the Benchmarking and Publications for Non-Targeted Analysis Working Group (BP4NTA) to address this need. Consisting of participants from around the world and representing fields ranging from environmental science and food chemistry to 'omics and toxicology, BP4NTA provides resources addressing a variety of challenges associated with NTA. Thus far, BP4NTA group members have aimed to establish a consensus on NTA-related terms and concepts and to create consistency in reporting practices by providing resources on a public Web site, including consensus definitions, reference content, and lists of available tools. Moving forward, BP4NTA will provide a setting for NTA researchers to continue discussing emerging challenges and contribute to additional harmonization efforts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".