Agricultural Sciences in the Big Data Era: Genotype and Phenotype Data Standardization, Utilization and Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Genotype-Phenotype Working Group was established in November 2021 as part of the AgBioData Consortium (https://www.agbiodata.org) with the goal of identifying current challenges in annotating and integrating large-scale genotype and phenotype data. Over the course of the year, the members of this working group identified different types of data sets, explored experimental platforms and methods for data generation, and examined how these data are annotated including the metadata requirements. We conducted a thorough review of publicly funded repositories for raw and processed data for each data type. We also examined several secondary databases and knowledgebases that enable the integration of heterogeneous data types in the context of the Genome Browser, Pathway Networks and tissue-specific gene expression. The review revealed a need for additional infrastructural support, standards, and tools to connect Genotype to Phenotype data and enhance data interoperability for knowledge synthesis and to foster translational research.
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 | 0.067 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".