MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388448853 · doi:10.1021/acs.jnatprod.3c00795

A Data Deposition Platform for Sharing Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Data

2023· article· en· W4388448853 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Pin, Ella F Poynton, Tamara Jordan, Jonghyeok Kim, Benjamin Ledingham, Jeffrey A. van Santen, Vera Yang, Andrew Maras, Pegah Tavangar, Vasuk Gautam, Harrison Peters, Tanvir Sajed, Brian L. Lee, Hailey A. Shreffler, James T. Koller, Zachary M. Tretter, John Cort, Lloyd W. Sumner, David S. Wishart, Roger G. Linington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Natural Products · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsRaw dataInteroperabilityComputer scienceData sharingDeposition (geology)Process (computing)World Wide WebGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data are rarely deposited in open databases, leading to loss of critical scientific knowledge. Existing data reporting methods (images, tables, lists of values) contain less information than raw data and are poorly standardized. Together, these issues limit FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) access to these data, which in turn creates barriers for compound dereplication and the development of new data-driven discovery tools. Existing NMR databases either are not designed for natural products data or employ complex deposition interfaces that disincentivize deposition. Journals, including the Journal of Natural Products (JNP), are now requiring data submission as part of the publication process, creating the need for a streamlined, user-friendly mechanism to deposit and distribute NMR data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Natural ProductsSame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207