Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37636584›Full record

ArticleEarth science informatics2023

Utility of the Python package Geoweaver_cwl for improving workflow reusability: an illustration with multidisciplinary use cases.

Amruta Kale, Ziheng Sun, Xiaogang Ma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Earth science informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amruta KaleDepartment of Computer Science, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844 USA.
Ziheng SunCenter for Spatial Information Science and Systems, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030 USA.
Xiaogang MaDepartment of Computer Science, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational workflows are widely used in data analysis, enabling automated tracking of steps and storage of provenance information, leading to innovation and decision-making in the scientific community. However, the growing popularity of workflows has raised concerns about reproducibility and reusability which can hinder collaboration between institutions and users. In order to address these concerns, it is important to standardize workflows or provide tools that offer a framework for describing workflows and enabling computational reusability. One such set of standards that has recently emerged is the Common Workflow Language (CWL), which offers a robust and flexible framework for data analysis tools and workflows. To promote portability, reproducibility, and interoperability of AI/ML workflows, we developed

Indexed as

Common Workflow LanguageInteroperabilityProvenance documentationReproducibilityWorkflow Platforms

Identifiers

PMID37636584
PMCPMC10450007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.