MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056464583 · doi:10.1017/s0016672301009582

The biological improbability of a clone

2002· review· en· W2056464583 on OpenAlexafffund
Gugs Lushai, Hugh D. Loxdale

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics Research · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
Keywordsclone (Java method)BiologyFidelityGenomeComputational biologyEpigeneticsGenetic variationEvolutionary biologyGeneticsVariation (astronomy)Variety (cybernetics)Structural variationComputer scienceGeneArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical evidence for intraclonal genetic variation is described here for clonal systems using a variety of molecular techniques and implicating a diversity of mechanisms. However, clonal systems are still generally perceived as having strict genetic fidelity. As concepts of genetic variability move from primary sequence data to include epigenetic and structural influences on genetic expression, the ability to detect changes in the genome at short intervals allows precedence to be given to inherent biological variation that is often analytically ignored. Therefore, the advent of powerful molecular techniques, like genome mapping, mean that our concepts of genetic fidelity within eukaryotic clones and the whole philosophy of the 'clone' needs to be re-evaluated and redefined to replace old unproven dogma in this aspect of science.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations79
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics ResearchSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207