MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1728246360 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0034

Modeling the calcium and phosphate mineralization of American lobster cuticle

2013· article· en· W1728246360 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph G. Kunkel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicInvertebrate Immune Response Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuticle (hair)HomarusFunction (biology)BiologyBiological systemEvolutionary biologyEcologyAnatomyCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bottom-up modeling of American lobster (Homarus americanus) cuticle explains architecture and function ab initio, from first principles, starting with synthesis of component polymers and progressively building composite structure that should explain observed properties. A top-down perspective decomposes the lobster cuticle starting at the top level of structural complexity and function aiming to descend to the finest detail. Both approaches aim to ultimately model the same cuticle structure. Current bottom-up models of the cuticle do not succeed in explaining key structural and functional detail identified by top-down approaches. Top-down identified structures and associated functions are valuable as bases for potential vulnerabilities to microbial attack. An immediate objective is to inform the bottom-up approach of top-down identified model components critical to cuticle function. Top-down features include detail of protein expression and mineral heterogeneity and their function in observed structures. This function-directed approach provides a better understanding of the distribution and roles of minerals in relation to their immediate cuticle environment. The top-down identified features can hopefully be included in ab initio models to improve our understanding of cuticle design.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicInvertebrate Immune Response MechanismsFrench-language works237,207