MaterialSample and its Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) Material Sample Task Group*1 kicked off in the third quarter of 2021. The group’s initial focus was to 1) achieve a clear conceptual delineation between the terms MaterialSample, PreservedSpecimen, LivingSpecimen, and FossilSpecimen (the terms used in basisOfRecord in the current DwC-A provided to the Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT) for describing physical material) 2) define the conceptual relationship between these terms and the term Organism 3) consider the possible implications of the activities towards the diversification of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data model*2 and what standards already exist that should inform our work. Based on this conceptual work, the group is now developing a concrete proposal for a clarification of a MaterialSample class with its own properties. Our presentation will provide a brief review of the task group's progress and our thoughts about what comes next.
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.024 |
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".