MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1929774606

ONTOGENIA Y FISIONOMÍA DEL PAISAJE EPIGENÉTICO: UN MODELO GENERAL PARA EXPLICAR SISTEMAS EN DESARROLLO

2013· article· es· W1929774606 on OpenAlexaff
Lukas Tamayo Orrego

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2013
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and bioethics in healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El paisaje epigenético es una metáfora gráfica propuesta por Conrad H. Waddington para explicar el desarrollo de los organismos mediante la imagen de un paisaje compuesto por una superficie ondulante con cimas y valles, que representan las vías por las cuales se desplazan las células del organismo en su proceso de diferenciación. C.H. Waddington, considerado como el padre de la epigenética, es notable por sus aportes teóricos, que incluyen las nociones de asimilación genética, la canalización del desarrollo y el epi-genotipo. Estas ideas surgieron a partir de estudios experimentales en biología del desarrollo, los cuales resultaron en el descubrimiento del “organizador” en embriones de aves y, posteriormente, de fenocopias inducidas por factores ambientales en Drosophila. En el presente artículo se presenta una interpretación del paisaje epigenético y conceptos relacionados, que ponen en evidencia el poder heurístico de este modelo y su importancia para la biología contemporánea. Este trabajo es un homenaje a la vida de C. H. Waddington, cuya obra continúa siendo de gran actualidad.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.251 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicEthics and bioethics in healthcareFrench-language works237,207