The IPDGC/GP2 Hackathon - an open science event for training in data science, genomics, and collaboration using Parkinson’s disease data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Open science and collaboration are necessary to facilitate the advancement of Parkinson’s disease (PD) research. Hackathons are collaborative events that bring together people with different skill sets and backgrounds to generate resources and creative solutions to problems. These events can be used as training and networking opportunities. Objective To coordinate a virtual hackathon to develop novel PD research tools. Methods 49 early career scientists from 12 countries collaborated in a virtual 3-day hackathon event in May 2021, during which they built tools and pipelines with a focus on PD. Resources were created with the goal of helping scientists accelerate their own research by having access to the necessary code and tools. Results Each team was allocated one of nine different projects, each with a different goal. These included developing post-genome-wide association studies (GWAS) analysis pipelines, downstream analysis of genetic variation pipelines, and various visualization tools. Conclusion Hackathons are a valuable approach to inspire creative thinking, supplement training in data science, and foster collaborative scientific relationships, which are foundational practices for early career researchers. The resources generated can be used to accelerate research on the genetics of PD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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".