MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975837604 · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2005.059105

Bacteria in Biology, Biotechnology and Medicine, 6th ed. Paul Singleton. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2004, 570 pp., $80.00, paperback. ISBN 0-470-09027-8.

2005· article· en· W1975837604 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Noble

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingletonBacteriologyLibrary scienceClassicsBiologyArtComputer scienceGeneticsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paul Singleton is a prolific author of texts on bacteriology. The first edition of this book was published in 1981. I was interested to find, at Amazon.com, a recent review of the 1981 text that referred to it as “clear and accessible” and “a good supplement to biology courses in college or even advanced high school courses”, because I find those descriptives applicable to the current version as well. It is fair to say that to set a task of creating a readable text on such an extremely broad topic in <600 pages would be a major challenge. The author has accomplished his task by being broadly inclusive, without going into too much detail on every aspect. The style of text is highly readable, being tight but not terse. Some topics, including those that address molecular biology, are handled well, with moderate complexity, whereas others, such as antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance, are handled far too sparsely. In some places, the sparseness may lead to confusion. For example, in speaking about methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), the comment is made that this organism “was once commonly sensitive to vancomycin, but reduced susceptibility to the antibiotic has been reported frequently”. It is quite incorrect to imply that vancomycin is not the drug of choice for infections with MRSA. In another example of excessive sparseness, in one 10-page section, Singleton addresses 42 different bacterial infections (anthrax to whooping cough). In my opinion, the book would have been enhanced if some of these overly brief sections had been left out. Of interest, some sections that, in my opinion, would have been more appropriate are left out or virtually ignored. There is no discussion on bacterial antigens, with the exception of a single sentence that refers to O and H antigens for serotyping Salmonella and O antigens for typing Escherichia coli. In addition, bacterial hemolysis and hemolysins, a subject of considerable significance with respect to bacterial identification and pathogenesis, received only one paragraph of attention. In summary, the book is a clearly written, broadly encompassing, but superficial text on the topic of bacteria. In my opinion, it would be most useful as a teacher’s guide while preparing introductory lectures for science students being introduced to microbiology. It would find a limited role in most laboratory libraries.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.036

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 head0.314
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207