The ISCB competency framework v. 3: a revised and extended standard for bioinformatics education and training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Developing competency in the broad area of bioinformatics is challenging globally, owing to the breadth of the field and the diversity of its audiences for education and training. Course design can be facilitated by the use of a competency framework-a set of competency requirements that define the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed by individuals in (or aspiring to be in) a particular profession or role. These competency requirements can help to define curricula as they can inform both the content and level to which competency needs to be developed. The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) developed a list of bioinformatics competencies in 2014, and these have undergone several rounds of improvement. In consultation with a broad bioinformatics training community, these have now been further refined and extended to include knowledge skills and attitudes, and mappings to previous and other existing competency frameworks. Results: Here, we present version 3 of the ISCB competency framework. We describe how it was developed and how to access it, as well as providing some examples of how it has been used. Availability and implementation: The framework is openly accessible at https://competency.ebi.ac.uk/framework/iscb/3.0/competencies.
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 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
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".