MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283728437 · doi:10.1525/hsns.2022.52.3.320

The Human Genome Project as a Singular Episode in the History of Genomics

2022· article· en· W4283728437 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Miguel García-Sancho, Rhodri Leng, Gil Viry, Mark Wong, Niki Vermeulen, James Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Studies in the Natural Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsGenomicsSequence (biology)DNA sequencingHuman genomeComparative genomicsWhole genome sequencingFunctional genomicsGenomeComputational biologyPersonal genomicsScale (ratio)BiologyData scienceGeneticsComputer scienceGeneGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we progressively de-center the Human Genome Project (HGP) in the history of genomics and human genomics. We show that the HGP, understood as an international effort to make the human reference genome sequence publicly available, constitutes a specific model of genomics: prominent and influential but nevertheless distinct from others that preceded, existed alongside, and succeeded it. Our analysis of a comprehensive corpus of publications describing human DNA sequences submitted to public databases from 1985 to 2005 reveals a plethora of authoring institutions, with only a few contributing to the HGP. Examining these publications in a co-authorship network enables us to propose two different sequencing approaches—horizontal and vertical sequencing—whose changing dynamics shaped the history of human genomics. We argue that investigating the extent to which different institutions combined these approaches or prioritized one of them captures the history of genomics better than using the categories of large-scale sequence production and sequence use, as much scholarly literature concerning the HGP has done. Sequence production and use became fully distinct only within the HGP model, and especially during the last stages of this endeavor. By exploring a collaboration between Celera Genomics, a large-scale sequencing institution, and two medical genetics laboratories, we show the potential of our co-authorship network and its analysis for historical research. Our study connects the historiographies of medical genetics and human genomics and indicates that the so-called translational gap from sequence data to clinical outcomes may reflect the assumption that genomics was substantially different from prior and parallel genetics research. This essay is part of a special issue entitled The Sequences and the Sequencers: A New Approach to Investigating the Emergence of Yeast, Human, and Pig Genomics, edited by Miguel García-Sancho and James Lowe.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical Studies in the Natural SciencesSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207