MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005652267 · doi:10.1103/physreve.73.046126

Equivalence of<i>trans</i>paths in ion channels

2006· article· en· W2005652267 on OpenAlexaff
J.A. Álvarez, Bruce Hajek

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
Topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIonEquivalence (formal languages)PhysicsStatistical physicsPath (computing)MathematicsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore stochastic models for the study of ion transport in biological cells. Analysis of these models explains and explores an interesting feature of ion transport observed by biophysicists. Namely, the average time it takes ions to cross certain ion channels is the same in either direction, even if there is an electric potential difference across the channels. It is shown for simple single ion models that the distribution of a path (i.e., the history of location versus time) of an ion crossing the channel in one direction has the same distribution as the time-reversed path of an ion crossing the channel in the reverse direction. Therefore, not only is the mean duration of these paths equal, but other measures, such as the variance of passage time or the mean time a path spends within a specified section of the channel, are also the same for both directions of traversal. The feature is also explored for channels with interacting ions. If a system of interacting ions is in reversible equilibrium (net flux is zero), then the equivalence of the left-to-right trans paths with the time-reversed right-to-left trans paths still holds. However, if the system is in equilibrium, but not reversible equilibrium, then such equivalence need not hold.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcationFrench-language works237,207