Repeatability of the amplicon sequencing assay when applied to field samples.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The amplicon sequencing assay was applied to DNA lysates made from populations of L3 larvae collected from field samples from six Canadian cattle farms (Field samples 1–6). <b>Fig 5A</b>: The results of three technical replicates of the amplicon sequencing assay applied to the same single DNA lysate made from larval populations of each farm. Each DNA lysate was made from 300–2000 larvae (Field sample 1 = 1000 L3; Field sample 2 = 400 L3; Field sample 3 = 1000 L3; Field sample 4 = 2000 L3; Field sample 5 = 300 L3 and Field sample 6 = 2000 L3. <b>Fig 5B</b>: The results of three technical replicates of the amplicon sequencing assay applied to three independent DNA lysates made from separate batches of 1,000 and 2,000 larvae from field samples 1 and 4 respectively. The Y-axis of both charts shows the percentage species proportions as determined by the amplicon sequencing assay (25 cycles of amplification and following application of the appropriate correction factor). The field sample number is indicated on the X-axis.</p>
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.144 | 0.001 |
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 it