MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003659663 · doi:10.3109/01677063.2014.896911

Collective Cell Migration: “All for One and One for All”

2014· review· en· W2003659663 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurogenetics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchAgence Nationale de la RechercheInstitut National Du CancerAssociation pour la Recherche sur le Cancer
KeywordsNeuroscienceMechanism (biology)Cell migrationDrosophila (subgenus)BiologyProcess (computing)Nervous systemNeuronal migrationCollective behaviorIsolation (microbiology)CellComputer scienceSociologyBioinformaticsGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell migration is a key mechanism during neural development, as it allows cells to reach their final destination from their birthplace. In some cases, cells migrate in isolation, whereas in others they migrate in collectives, as chains, streams, clusters, or sheets. The coordinated and timely process of collective migration eventually ensures the proper organization of the nervous system and its misregulation leads to severe diseases, including neurological disorders. This review impinges upon the cellular and molecular interactions underlying collective cell migration in animal models, and highlights the recent advances made through in vivo analyses of the Drosophila wing glia.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.267 · 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