MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290660596 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2021.0520

Computing Maximal Covers for Protein Sequences

2022· article· en· W4290660596 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstringCover (algebra)String (physics)Context (archaeology)Computer scienceSoftwareFragment (logic)Sequence (biology)Theoretical computer scienceBiologyAlgorithmMathematicsData structureGeneticsProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A partial cover of a string or sequence of length n, which we model as an array , is a repeating substring u of x such that “many” positions in x lie within occurrences of u. A maximal cover u*—introduced in 2018 by Mhaskar and Smyth as optimal cover—is a partial cover that, over all partial covers u, maximizes the positions covered. Applying data structures also introduced by Mhaskar and Smyth, our software MAXCOVER for the first time enables efficient computation of u* for any x—in particular, as described here, for protein sequences of Arabidopsis, Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila melanogaster, and humans. In this protein context, we also compare an extended version of MAXCOVER with existing software (MUMmer's repeat-match) for the closely related task of computing non-extendible repeating substrings (a.k.a. maximal repeats). In practice, MAXCOVER is an order-of-magnitude faster than MUMmer, with much lower space requirements, while producing more compact output that, nevertheless, yields a more exact and user-friendly specification of the repeats.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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