Recommendations for the packaging and containerizing of bioinformatics software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software Containers are changing the way scientists and researchers develop, deploy and exchange scientific software. They allow labs of all sizes to easily install bioinformatics software, maintain multiple versions of the same software and combine tools into powerful analysis pipelines. However, containers and software packages should be produced under certain rules and standards in order to be reusable, compatible and easy to integrate into pipelines and analysis workflows. Here, we presented a set of recommendations developed by the BioContainers Community to produce standardized bioinformatics packages and containers. These recommendations provide practical guidelines to make bioinformatics software more discoverable, reusable and transparent. They are aimed to guide developers, organisations, journals and funders to increase the quality and sustainability of research software.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.082 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.082 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".