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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic selection, which predicts phenotypes such as yield and drought resistance in crops from high-density markers positioned throughout the genome of the varieties, is moving towards machine learning techniques to make predictions on complex traits that are controlled by several genes. In this paper, we consider sparse Bayesian learning and ensemble learning as a technique for genomic selection and ranking markers based on their relevance to a trait. We define and explore two different forms of the sparse Bayesian learning for predicting phenotypes and identifying the most influential markers of a trait, respectively. We apply our methods on a Saccharomyces cerevisiae dataset, and analyse our results with respect to existing related works, trait heritability, as well as the accuracies obtained from linear and Gaussian kernel functions. We find that sparse Bayesian methods are not only competitive with other machine learning methods in predicting yeast growth in different environments, but are also capable of identifying the most important markers, including both positive and negative effects on the growth, from which biologists can get insight. This attribute can make our proposed ensemble of sparse Bayesian learners favourable in ranking markers based on their relevance to a trait.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it