Additional file 4 of Integrative analysis of green ash phloem transcripts and proteins during an emerald ash borer infestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 4: Table S2. The putative functions of differentially expressed transcripts found in high-low comparisons. Table S3. The putative functions of differentially expressed transcripts found in high-medium comparisons. Table S4. The putative functions of differentially expressed transcripts found in medium-low comparisons. Table S5. The putative functions of differentially expressed proteins found in high-low comparisons. Table S6. Differentially expressed transcripts found in the high-low comparison that were also differentially expressed in EAB treatment vs control (TvC) experiment from Lane et al. 2016 [19]. Table S7. Differentially expressed transcripts found in the high-medium comparison that were also differentially expressed in EAB treatment vs control (TvC) experiment from Lane et al. 2016 [19]. Table S8. Differentially expressed transcripts found in the medium-low comparison that were also differentially expressed in EAB treatment vs control (TvC) experiment from Lane et al. 2016 [19]. Table S9. Differentially expressed proteins found in the high-low comparison that were also differentially expressed in EAB treatment vs control (TvC) experiment from Lane et al. 2016 [19]. Table S10. Differentially expressed proteins/transcripts found in the integrative analysis that were also differentially expressed in EAB treatment vs control (TvC) experiment from Lane et al. 2016 [19]. Table S11. Differentially expressed transcripts found in the high-low and high-medium comparison that were also identified as EAB resistance genes by Kelly at al. 2020.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.761 | 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".