MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1834070694 · doi:10.4161/idp.24157

What’s in a name? Why these proteins are intrinsically disordered

2013· review· en· W1834070694 on OpenAlexaff
A. Keith Dunker, M. Madan Babu, Elisar Barbar, Martin Blackledge, Sarah E. Bondos, Zsuzsanna Dosztányi, H. Jane Dyson, Julie D. Forman‐Kay, Mónika Fuxreiter, Jörg Gsponer, Kyou‐Hoon Han, David T. Jones, Sonia Longhi, Steven J. Metallo, Ken Nishikawa, Ruth Nussinov, Zoran Obradović, Rohit V. Pappu, Burkhard Rost, Philipp Selenko, Vinod Subramaniam, Joel L. Sussman, Péter Tompa, Vladimir N. Uversky

Bibliographic record

VenueIntrinsically Disordered Proteins · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrinsically disordered proteinsPsychologyBiologyBiophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” From “Romeo and Juliet”, William Shakespeare (1594) This article opens a series of publications on disambiguation of the basic terms used in the field of intrinsically disordered proteins. We start from the beginning, namely from the explanation of what the expression “intrinsically disordered protein” actually means and why this particular term has been chosen as the common denominator for this class of proteins characterized by broad structural, dynamic and functional characteristics.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations306
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntrinsically Disordered ProteinsSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207