MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039294433 · doi:10.1063/1.2213613

Noise in genetic and neural networks

2006· article· en· W2039294433 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueChaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkBridging (networking)Noise (video)Focus (optics)Field (mathematics)Reading (process)Artificial intelligenceCognitive scienceData scienceTheoretical computer scienceMachine learningMathematicsPsychologyLinguisticsPhysicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both neural and genetic networks are significantly noisy, and stochastic effects in both cases ultimately arise from molecular events. Nevertheless, a gulf exists between the two fields, with researchers in one often being unaware of similar work in the other. In this Special Issue, we focus on bridging this gap and present a collection of papers from both fields together. For each field, the networks studied range from just a single gene or neuron to endogenous networks. In this introductory article, we describe the sources of noise in both genetic and neural systems. We discuss the modeling techniques in each area and point out similarities. We hope that, by reading both sets of papers, ideas developed in one field will give insight to scientists from the other and that a common language and methodology will develop.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.269 · 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