MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Peer Review #2 of "A bright idea—metabarcoding arthropods from light fixtures (v0.1)"

2021· peer-review· en· W4236135485 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vasco Elbrecht, Angie Lindner, Laura Manerus, Dirk Steinke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsComputer scienceBiologyComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arthropod communities in buildings have not been extensively studied, although humans have always shared their homes with them.In this study we explored if arthropod DNA can be retrieved and metabarcoded from indoor environments through the collection of dead specimens in light fixtures to better understand what shapes arthropod diversity in our homes.Insects were collected from 45 light fixtures at the Centre for Biodiversity Genomics (CBG, Guelph, Canada), and by community scientists at 12 different residential homes in Southern Ontario.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3650.234

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior→French-language works237,207→