Bibliographic record
Abstract
For quality, interpretation, reproducibility, and sharing value, microscopy images should be accompanied by detailed descriptions of the conditions that were used to produce them. Micro-Meta App is an intuitive, highly interoperable, open-source software tool that was developed in the context of the 4D Nucleome (4DN) consortium and is designed to facilitate the extraction and collection of relevant microscopy metadata as specified by the recent 4DN-BINA-OME tiered-system of Microscopy Metadata specifications. In addition to substantially lowering the burden of quality assurance, the visual nature of the Micro-Meta App makes it particularly suited for training purposes. In this protocol and in the associated videos (https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd2SsBj4SIsh7eE1M7l4v5_EsjUQcsfb0) you will learn how to get started using the Micro-Meta App for documenting your imaging experiments. Want to learn more? Please watch Video 1 of the Tutorial Series and read the publications listed in the References section of this protocol to learn more about the Micro-Meta App and the underlying 4DN-BINA-OME tiered system of Microscopy Metadata specifications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.399 | 0.266 |
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".