MIADE metadata guidelines: Minimum Information About a Disorder Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An unambiguous description of an experimental setup and analysis, and the subsequent biological observation is vital for accurate data interpretation and reproducible results. Consequently, experimental analyses should be described in a concise, unequivocal, and digestible manner. The aim of minimum information guidelines is to define the fundamental complement of data that can support an unambiguous conclusion on experimental observations. In this document, we present the Minimum Information About Disorder Experiments (MIADE) guidelines to define the minimal fundamental parameters required for non-experts to understand the key findings of an experiment studying intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) or intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDRs). MIADE guidelines provide recommendations for data producers to describe the results of their experiments at source, for curators to annotate experimental data to community resources and for database developers maintaining community resources to disseminate the data. We give examples of the application of these guidelines in common use cases and describe the implementation of an update to the DisProt IDP database to allow MIADE-compliant annotation. The MIADE guidelines will improve the interpretability of experimental results for data consumers, facilitate direct data submission, simplify data curation, improve data exchange among repositories and standardise the dissemination of the key metadata on an IDP experiment by IDP data sources.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".