MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974418230 · doi:10.4161/spmg.24376

Protamines and spermatogenesis in<i><i>Drosophila</i></i>and<i><i>Homo sapiens</i></i>

2013· article· he· W1974418230 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpermatogenesis · 2013
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSpermatogenesisBiologyDrosophila melanogasterProtamineSpermGeneticsHomo sapiensEvolutionary biologyCell biologyGeneEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of mature and motile sperm is a detailed process that utilizes many molecular players to ensure the faithful execution of spermatogenesis. In most species that have been examined, spermatogenesis begins with a single cell that undergoes dramatic transformation, culminating with the hypercompaction of DNA into the sperm head by replacing histones with protamines. Precise execution of the stages of spermatogenesis results in the production of motile sperm. While comparative analyses have been used to identify similarities and differences in spermatogenesis between species, the focus has primarily been on vertebrate spermatogenesis, particularly mammals. To understand the evolutionary basis of spermatogenetic variation, however, a more comprehensive comparison is needed. In this review, we examine spermatogenesis and the final packaging of DNA into the sperm head in the insect Drosophila melanogaster and compare it to spermatogenesis in Homo sapiens.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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