MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

50 years after - examination of some circumstances around the establishment of the correct chromosome number of man

2006· article· en· W1851714765 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Úlfur Árnason

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Genetics
KeywordsLogbookCredibilityChromosomeNarrativeBiologyConsistency (knowledge bases)GenealogyGeneticsHistoryLiteratureEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyGeneArtificial intelligenceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHereditasSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207