MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Art of Protein Sorting: Meeting Report from the Annaberg Meeting, Goldegg, Austria, 9–13 January 2001

2001· article· en· W1909963261 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sharon A. Tooze, Gabriele Seethaler, Dennis Shields

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular transport and secretion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovartis Pharma
KeywordsBiologySortingComputational biologyCell biologyLibrary scienceComputer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first Annaberg Meeting/EMBO Workshop on 'Protein Sorting and Processing in the Secretory Pathway' was held in a small skiing village near Salzburg in 1989.While this conference, attended by about 15 people, was little more than an extended lab meeting of several groups interested in prohormone processing and secretion, the Fifth Annaberg Conference (about 90 attendees) has grown into one of the more significant, enjoyable and intense meetings in protein and vesicle trafficking.As with previous meetings, the attendees were selected not only for their scientific interests but also for their ability to perform on the ski slopes and in the discotheques. Protein-Lipid InteractionsA significant theme that emerged from the previous Annaberg Conferences was that inositol phospholipids play a key role in regulating protein and membrane traffic, and several speakers presented evidence demonstrating the importance of these lipids in vesicle trafficking and organelle structure.Pietro DeCamilli (Yale University) showed that a brain-specific form of the enzyme phosphatidyl 4, phosphate 5-kinase, * Protein Sorting and Processing in the Secretory Pathway; Goldegg, Austria, 9-13 January 2001.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.046

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrafficSame topicCellular transport and secretionFrench-language works237,207