MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411016802 · doi:10.1016/j.xpro.2025.103873

How has structuring your ideas into protocols contributed to your research progress and facilitated collaboration with others in the field?

2025· article· en· W4411016802 on OpenAlexaff
Xi Zhang, Leila Shokri

Bibliographic record

VenueSTAR Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructuringTroubleshootingProtocol (science)Field (mathematics)Computer sciencePublicationProcess (computing)Data sciencePolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stuck in the middle of a project or degree and unable to see an immediate path forward is a common experience for researchers. In this backstory, Xi shares how tidying up a step-by-step protocol for STAR Protocols has led to unforeseen progress and connections. He has collaborated with the STAR Protocols team to publish five protocols and review three manuscripts. He finds that structuring thoughts in protocol form helps build confidence and explore ideas behind the data, especially when outcomes are unexpected. Additionally, the troubleshooting process can unravel interesting biological questions. For more information on the protocols related to this backstory, please refer to Zhang et al. 1 , 2 , 3

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSTAR ProtocolsSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207