MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099207148

TBestDB: a taxonomically broad database of expressed sequence tags (ESTs)

2006· article· en· W7099207148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenBankExpressed sequence tagSequence (biology)Sequence databaseCluster analysisMetadataAnnotation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The TBestDB database contains 370 000 clustered expressed sequence tag (EST) sequences from 49 organisms, covering a taxonomically broad range of poorly studied, mainly unicellular eukaryotes, and includes experimental information, consensus sequences, gene annotations and metabolic pathway predictions. Most of these ESTs have been generated by the Protist EST Program, a collaboration among six Canadian research groups. EST sequences are read from trace files up to a minimum quality cut-off, vector and linker sequence is masked, and the ESTs are clustered using phrap. The resulting consensus sequences are automatically annotated by using the AutoFACT program. The datasets are automatically checked for clustering errors due to chimerism and potential crosscontamination between organisms, and suspect data are flagged in or removed from the database. Access to data deposited in TBestDB by individual users can be restricted to those users for a limited period. With this first report on TBestDB, we open the database to the research community for free processing, annotation, interspecies comparisons and GenBank submission of EST data generated in individual laboratories. For instructions on submission to TBestDB, contact

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.033

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→