Bioschemas training profiles: A set of specifications for standardizing training information to facilitate the discovery of training programs and resources
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
Stand-alone life science training events and e-learning solutions are among the most sought-after modes of training because they address both point-of-need learning and the limited timeframes available for "upskilling." Yet, finding relevant life sciences training courses and materials is challenging because such resources are not marked up for internet searches in a consistent way. This absence of markup standards to facilitate discovery, re-use, and aggregation of training resources limits their usefulness and knowledge translation potential. Through a joint effort between the Global Organisation for Bioinformatics Learning, Education and Training (GOBLET), the Bioschemas Training community, and the ELIXIR FAIR Training Focus Group, a set of Bioschemas Training profiles has been developed, published, and implemented for life sciences training courses and materials. Here, we describe our development approach and methods, which were based on the Bioschemas model, and present the results for the 3 Bioschemas Training profiles: TrainingMaterial, Course, and CourseInstance. Several implementation challenges were encountered, which we discuss alongside potential solutions. Over time, continued implementation of these Bioschemas Training profiles by training providers will obviate the barriers to skill development, facilitating both the discovery of relevant training events to meet individuals' learning needs, and the discovery and re-use of training and instructional materials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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