GO-FAANG meeting: a gathering on functional annotation of animal genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Functional Annotation of Animal Genomes (FAANG) Consortium recently held a Gathering On FAANG (GO-FAANG) Workshop in Washington, DC on October 7–8, 2015. This consortium is a grass-roots organization formed to advance the annotation of newly assembled genomes of domesticated and non-model organisms (www.faang.org). The workshop gathered together from around the world a group of 100+ genome scientists, administrators, representatives of funding agencies and commodity groups to discuss the latest advancements of the consortium, new perspectives, next steps and implementation plans. The workshop was streamed live and recorded, and all talks, along with speaker slide presentations, are available at www.faang.org. In this report, we describe the major activities and outcomes of this meeting. We also provide updates on ongoing efforts to implement discussions and decisions taken at GO-FAANG to guide future FAANG activities. In summary, reference datasets are being established under pilot projects; plans for tissue sets, morphological classification and methods of sample collection for different tissues were organized; and core assays and data and meta-data analysis standards were established.
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 | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.019 |
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".