Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Translational research used to be fun.In fact, it used to be arresting-of course, considered here in the frame of triplets and ribonucleic acids of the transfer and mRNA variety.In fact, the mind-boggling concept that someone could actually know the velocity of a ribosome trundling down a messenger RNA, like a freight car on a railway track, led me to decide at a tender age that biochemistry was the only way to go.On a journey that included a compressed but vigorous stint in Switzerland ("molecular biology boot camp") and postdoctoral training with an eminent retrovirologist, my budding scientific life stood at a crossroads.What to do next?At this point, I had a reconnection with a moment from the past, in which a second-year, undergraduate version of myself read about an infectious agent called scrapie that didn't have a nucleic acid genome-bizarre!A serendipitous meeting, and this loose end was closed off; several productive research years were spent studying prions in San Francisco.Fast-forwarding through the nineties and noughties, we come to today's world, where the N in GANTT doesn't mean an ambiguous nucleotide but might mean that a progress report needs filing.For most basic biomedical scientists, the drone of the Translational Research mantra to leverage and commercialize can no longer be ignored; that ideology is enacted.The perception that taxpayers are being given value for money is the key driver in this equation, but how best to travel from a research lab environment to a Point A of a deep insight and thence, perhaps, to Point B of a significant impact upon delivered health care or a Point C of a commercialized platform technology?Perhaps the crux of the dilemma arises from a confusion of expectations and disciplines by politicians.Research and development (R&D) has predictability, a linear trajectory, and short timelines but may offer only shallow insights.R&D is certainly the logical option if one assumes that everything that can be discovered has already been discovered.On the other hand, basic research assumes that the catalog of ground rules for phenomena in the natural world is still being written; it has risk, as it lacks predictability and linearity.A benefit of basic research is that it routinely supplies a rigorous training environment.A yet bigger benefitalbeit less frequent-is that it provides "transformative" insights that can satisfy all expectations and deliverables.However, basic science can suffer from a variation on the theme of giving tax-payers value for money; namely, if the lay public or a Congressman (or, in Canada, a Member of Parliament) can't understand the project, then they are not satisfied, period-the initiative is deemed wasteful/weird/esoteric and a negative message is directed to the controllers of the research agency.Prion research has had a profound and lasting impact upon Biology-with-a-capital-B and illustrates these principles with its own trajectory-a trajectory that probably would not have been funded in a purely translational world.The molecular biology of these diseases emerged from the study of an arcane sheep infection that was more agricultural nuisance than life
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».