Sapporo: A workflow execution service that encourages the reuse of workflows in various languages in bioinformatics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased demand for efficient computation in data analysis encourages researchers in biomedical science to use workflow systems. Workflow systems, or so-called workflow languages, are used for the description and execution of a set of data analysis steps. Workflow systems increase the productivity of researchers, specifically in fields that use high-throughput DNA sequencing applications, where scalable computation is required. As systems have improved the portability of data analysis workflows, research communities are able to share workflows to reduce the cost of building ordinary analysis procedures. However, having multiple workflow systems in a research field has resulted in the distribution of efforts across different workflow system communities. As each workflow system has its unique characteristics, it is not feasible to learn every single system in order to use publicly shared workflows. Thus, we developed Sapporo, an application to provide a unified layer of workflow execution upon the differences of various workflow systems. Sapporo has two components: an application programming interface (API) that receives the request of a workflow run and a browser-based client for the API. The API follows the Workflow Execution Service API standard proposed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. The current implementation supports the execution of workflows in four languages: Common Workflow Language, Workflow Description Language, Snakemake, and Nextflow. With its extensible and scalable design, Sapporo can support the research community in utilizing valuable resources for data analysis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".