MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210492918 · doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-231-1_23

Seed Bioinformatics

2011· article· en· W4210492918 on OpenAlexaff
George W. Bassel, Michael J. Holdsworth, Nicholas J. Provart

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsArabidopsisArabidopsis thalianaIdentification (biology)Function (biology)Computational biologyContext (archaeology)BiologyTranscriptomeGeneData miningComputer scienceBioinformaticsGeneticsGene expressionBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of gene expression data sets is a potent tool for gene function prediction, cis-element discovery, and hypothesis generation for the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, and more recently for other agriculturally relevant species. In the case of Arabidopsis thaliana, experiments conducted by individual researchers to document its transcriptome have led to large numbers of data sets being made publicly available for data mining by the so-called "electronic northerns," co-expression analysis and other methods. Given that approximately 50% of the genes in Arabidopsis have no function ascribed to them by "conventional" homology searches, and that only around 10% of the genes have had their function experimentally determined in the laboratory, these analyses can accelerate the identification of potential gene function at the click of a mouse. This chapter covers the use of bioinformatic data mining tools available at the Bio-Array Resource ( http://www.bar.utoronto.ca ) and elsewhere for hypothesis generation in the context of seed biology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2400.241

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.301 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biology→Same topicPlant Molecular Biology Research→French-language works237,207→