FAIR Header Reference genome: A TRUSTworthy standard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of interoperable data standards among reference genome data-sharing platforms inhibits cross-platform analysis while increasing the risk of data provenance loss. Here, we describe the FAIR-bioHeaders Reference genome (FHR), a metadata standard guided by the principles of Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse (FAIR) in addition to the principles of Transparency, Responsibility, User focus, Sustainability, and Technology (TRUST). The objective of FHR is to provide an extensive set of data serialisation methods and minimum data field requirements while still maintaining extensibility, flexibility, and expressivity in an increasingly decentralised genomic data ecosystem. The effort needed to implement FHR is low; FHR's design philosophy ensures easy implementation while retaining the benefits gained from recording both machine and human-readable provenance.
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 | 0.054 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.012 |
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".