MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of juxtaposition angle on knot reduction in a lattice polygon model of strand passage

2011· article· en· W2001115276 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Szafron, C E Soteros

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern Canada Research GridCompute Canada
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)Polygon (computer graphics)Lattice (music)Reduction (mathematics)MathematicsCombinatoricsPhysicsGeometryMaterials scienceComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model of local strand passage in self-avoiding polygons (SAPs) on the simple cubic lattice is investigated numerically. The polygons studied, called Θ-SAPs, contain a specific strand-passage structure, called Θ, at a fixed strand-passage site. After-strand-passage knot probabilities are estimated from a Monte Carlo study of unknotted and trefoil Θ-SAPs and the estimates are used here to investigate how knot reduction depends on the local juxtaposition structure at the strand-passage site. In particular, we observe a correlation between knot reduction and the angle of the crossing at the strand-passage site; this same angle has been shown experimentally by Neuman et al (2009 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 6986–91) to be important in explaining topoisomerase action on DNA. The angle of the crossing is crossing sign dependent, and, from our observations, so is knot reduction; this can be used to understand experimentally observed knot-type chirality biases.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207