Biofoundries and citizen science can accelerate disease surveillance and environmental monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A biofoundry is a highly automated facility for processing of biological samples. In that capacity it has a major role in accelerating innovation and product development in engineering biology by implementing design, build, test and learn (DBTL) cycles. Biofoundries bring public and private stakeholders together to share resources, develop standards and forge collaborations on national and international levels. In this paper we argue for expanding the scope of applications for biofoundries towards roles in biosurveillance and biosecurity. Reviewing literature on these topics, we conclude that this could be achieved in multiple ways including developing measurement standards and protocols, engaging citizens in data collection, closer collaborations with biorefineries, and processing of samples. Here we provide an overview of these roles that despite their potential utility have not yet been commonly considered by policymakers and funding agencies and identify roadblocks to their realization. This document should prove useful to policymakers and other stakeholders who wish to strengthen biosecurity programs in ways that synergize with bioeconomy.
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 | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".