MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031533250 · doi:10.1139/g03-119

DNA, chromosomes, and in situ hybridization

2003· review· en· W2031533250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Trude Schwarzacher

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenomeRepeated sequenceGeneticsSatellite DNAGenome evolutionTransposable elementInterspersed repeatRetrotransposonChromosomeDNA sequencingGenomic organizationEvolutionary biologyDNAComputational biologyHuman genomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In situ hybridization is a powerful and unique technique that correlates molecular information of a DNA sequence with its physical location along chromosomes and genomes. It thus provides valuable information about physical map position of sequences and often is the only means to determine abundance and distribution of repetitive sequences making up the majority of most genomes. Repeated DNA sequences, composed of units of a few to a thousand base pairs in size, occur in blocks (tandem or satellite repeats) or are dispersed (including transposable elements) throughout the genome. They are often the most variable components of a genome, often being species and, occasionally, chromosome specific. Their variability arises through amplification, diversification and dispersion, as well as homogenization and loss; there is a remarkable correlation of molecular sequence features with chromosomal organization including the length of repeat units, their higher order structures, chromosomal locations, and dispersion mechanisms. Our understanding of the structure, function, organization, and evolution of genomes and their evolving repetitive components enabled many new cytogenetic applications to both medicine and agriculture, particularly in diagnosis and plant breeding.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations93
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207