Catalyzing computational biology research at an academic institute through an interest network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biology has been transformed by the rapid development of computing and the concurrent rise of data-rich approaches such as, omics or high-resolution imaging. However, there is a persistent computational skills gap in the biomedical research workforce. Inherent limitations of classroom teaching and institutional core support highlight the need for accessible ways for researchers to explore developments in computational biology. An analysis of the Scripps Research Genomics Core revealed increases in the total number and diversity of experiments: the share of experiments other than bulk RNA- or DNA-sequencing increased from 34% to 60% within 10 years, requiring more tailored computational analyses. These challenges were tackled by forming a volunteer-led affinity group of approximately 300 academic biomedical researchers interested in computational biology, referred to as the Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (CBB) affinity group. This adaptive group has provided continuing education and networking opportunities through seminars, workshops, and coding sessions while evolving along with the needs of its members. A survey of CBB's impact confirmed the group's events increased the members' exposure to computational biology educational and research events (79% respondents) and networking opportunities (61% respondents). Thus, volunteer-led affinity groups may be a viable complement to traditional institutional resources for enhancing the application of computing in biomedical research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".