MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408722503 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-89991-1

Quantifying the impact of workshops promoting microbiome data standards and data stewardship

2025· article· en· W4408722503 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersPacific Northwest National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchLos Alamos National LaboratoryLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsStewardship (theology)MicrobiomeData scienceComputer scienceBioinformaticsBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The field of microbiome research continues to grow at a rapid pace, with multi-omics approaches becoming widely used to interrogate diverse microbiome samples. However, due to lagging awareness and implementation of standards and data stewardship, many datasets are produced that are not comparable, reproducible, or reusable. In 2021, the National Microbiome Data Collaborative launched its Ambassador Program, which utilizes a community-learning model to annually train a cohort of early-career researchers in microbiome data stewardship best practices. These Ambassadors then host workshops and other events to communicate these themes to their respective microbiome research communities. To quantify the impact of this learning model for promoting awareness of and experience with microbiome data, we conducted a survey of workshop participants from events hosted by the 2023 Ambassador cohort. The 2023 cohort of 13 National Microbiome Data Collaborative Ambassadors collectively hosted 21 events, reaching over 550 researchers. The Ambassadors distributed an anonymous post-workshop survey to their event participants to quantify the effectiveness of the training materials, the workshop format, and the thematic content. From the 21 events, survey results were successfully collected for 15 of those events from a total of 122 researchers. Overall, 122 participants working with a range of microbiome types and from a variety of institutions responded to the survey and reported overwhelmingly positive experiences with the workshop content and materials, with 98% of respondents reporting that they gained knowledge from the event. Participants across the events also reported an increase in their post-workshop understanding of metadata standards, principles for microbiome data management and reporting, and the importance of standardization in microbiome data processing. Participants also expressed a willingness to apply what they learned about microbiome data stewardship to their own research. The results of this study demonstrate the effectiveness of hands-on workshops and community-learning for communicating data stewardship best practices to microbiome researchers. The lessons learned and details about the implementation of this cohort-based learning model contained herein are intended to assist other groups in their efforts to create or improve similar learning strategies.

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.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0090.020
Open science0.0080.019
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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.260 · 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