MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388866199 · doi:10.1186/s13100-023-00306-5

Proceedings of the inaugural Dark Genome Symposium: November 2022

2023· article· en· W4388866199 on OpenAlexaff
Jef D. Boeke, Kathleen H. Burns, Katherine B. Chiappinelli, Marie Classon, John M. Coffin, Daniel DeCarvalho, Joseph Dukes, Benjamin D. Greenbaum, George Kassiotis, Sarah K. Knutson, Arnold J. Levine, Avindra Nath, Sophie Papa, Daniel Ríos, John M. Sedivy, David T. Ting

Bibliographic record

VenueMobile DNA · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute on AgingFrancis Crick Institute
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Library scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In November 2022 the first Dark Genome Symposium was held in Boston, USA. The meeting was hosted by Rome Therapeutics and Enara Bio, two biotechnology companies working on translating our growing understanding of this vast genetic landscape into therapies for human disease. The spirit and ambition of the meeting was one of shared knowledge, looking to strengthen the network of researchers engaged in the field. The meeting opened with a welcome from Rosana Kapeller and Kevin Pojasek followed by a first session of field defining talks from key academics in the space. A series of panels, bringing together academia and industry views, were then convened covering a wide range of pertinent topics. Finally, Richard Young and David Ting gave their views on the future direction and promise for patient impact inherent in the growing understanding of the Dark Genome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.038

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMobile DNASame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207