50 years after - examination of some circumstances around the establishment of the correct chromosome number of man
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Three authors, Levan (1975, 1978), Tjio (1978) and Hultén (2002) have independently described the establishment of the correct chromosome number of man (Tjio and Levan 1956) and the background to that study. However, the three authors provide strikingly different accounts of this historical discovery. In this study I have examined the consistency between these accounts and details provided by the logbook kept at Cancer Chromosome Laboratory, University of Lund. For complementary details I have also consulted several persons that were active at the Institute of Genetics, Univ. of Lund, at the time of the discovery. Levan's (1975)Levan's (1978) accounts are both written in a modest way compared to the more self-centered narratives of Tjio and Hultén. His accounts are also consistent with all details that can be collected from the logbook. However, and most unfortunately, Levan is not explicit with respect to the dates of what might be different cytogenetic observations related to the determination of the correct chromosome number of man. The logbook leaves no room for various temporal details given by Tjio, which, if correct, might substantiate his account. Also Tjio's introduction of an alter ego into the narrative is apt to lessen the general credibility of his account. Tjio's (1978) contention of having made his human chromosome preparations at 2 a.m. on December 22nd or 23rd would be consistent with his claim that he arrived from Spain in early December 1955. His account of this crucial issue is incorrect, however, as he did not arrive at the Cancer Chromosome Laboratory until December 19. Hultén's claim of involvement becomes highly questionable in the light of her fading recollections of both the localities at the Institute of Genetics and the persons working there. Her temporal account, like that of Tjio, remains unsupported by the logbook. Examination of the logbook for temporal details relating to the establishment of the correct chromosome number of man suggests that Levan made his first preliminary 2n=46 human chromosome counts around December 20th-23rd, 1955, and that Tjio made his first conclusive preparations two-three weeks after his arrival from Spain, that is in early January 1956.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».