MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241689034 · doi:10.1515/iupac.83.0413

Luminescence Assay

2016· dataset· en· W4241689034 on OpenAlexaff
John Proudfoot, Olivier Nosjean, Jan Blanchard, John Wang, Dominique Besson, Denis Crankshaw, Günter Gauglitz, Robert Hertzberg, Carol Homon, Lyndon Llewellyn, Richard R. Neubig, Larry Walker, Pascal Villa

Bibliographic record

VenueIUPAC Standards Online · 2016
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlossaryContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Computer scienceField (mathematics)Multidisciplinary approachData scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Management scienceEngineeringSociologyBiologyLinguisticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomolecular screening is now a crucial component of the drug discovery process, and this glossary will be of use to practitioners in the field of screening and to those who interact with the screening community. The glossary contains definitions related to various aspects of the screening process such as assay types, data handling, and relevant technologies. Many of the terms used in this discipline are not covered by existing glossaries, and where they are, the definitions are often not appropriate for this field. Where appropriate, this document provides new or modified definitions to better reflect the new context. The field of biomolecular screening is multidisciplinary in nature, and this glossary, containing authoritative definitions, will be useful not only for regular practitioners, but also for those who make use of data generated during the screening process.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.106

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIUPAC Standards OnlineSame topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence researchFrench-language works237,207