eLife Assessment: Spyglass: a framework for reproducible and shareable neuroscience research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific progress depends on reliable and reproducible results. Progress can be accelerated when data are shared and re-analyzed to address new questions. Current approaches to storing and analyzing neural data involve bespoke formats and software that make replication and reuse of data difficult. To address these challenges, we created Spyglass, an open-source data management and analysis framework written in Python. Spyglass provides reproducible pipelines for common neuroscience analyses and sharing of raw data, intermediate analyses and final results within and across labs. Spyglass uses the Neurodata Without Borders (NWB) standard and includes pipelines for spectral filtering, spike sorting, pose tracking, and neural decoding. Spyglass can be extended to apply existing and newly developed pipelines to datasets from multiple sources. We demonstrate these features in the context of a cross-laboratory replication by applying advanced state space decoding algorithms to publicly available data.New users can try out Spyglass on a Jupyter Hub hosted by HHMI and 2i2c: .
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 | 0.026 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.129 | 0.146 |
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".