MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of cetacean DNA: II. Localization of 18S and 28S ribosomal RNA cistrons in a heavy DNA component

2009· article· en· W2030208775 on OpenAlexaff
Úlfur Árnason, A. Lima-de-Faria, H. GRANSTRÖM, Margareth Isaksson

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBuoyant densityBalaenopteraIsopycnicSatellite DNARibosomal RNA28S ribosomal RNADNA18S ribosomal RNARNAMolecular biologyWhaleGeneGeneticsCentrifugationEcologyBiochemistryRibosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA was extracted from 10 cetacean species. Three species belong to the sub-order Mysticeti (baleen whales) and seven to the Odontoceti (toothed whales). Isopycnic centrifugation of these DNAs to equilibrium in neutral CsCl shows the following features in the analytical ultracentrifuge. The main band has an average buoyant density of 1.700 g/ml. A satellite (“shoulder”) appears in four species: Balaenoptera acutorostrata, B. borealis, Platanista indi and Physeter catodon with a buoyant density of 1.710, 1.708, 1.714 and 1.720 g/ml, respectively. In most species the main band also shows a pronounced asymmetry being wider on the heavy side and its top was seen to be divided into two components in one species. B. physalus 28S and 18S H3 RNA of high specific activity were hybridized with B. physalus unlabelled DNA. The position of the 28S and 18S hybridization peaks corresponds to a buoyant density of circa 1.705 g/ml. This location is different from that of the satellites observed in the other balenopterid species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHereditasSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207