MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056990888 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2591

Molecular design of the α–keratin composite: insights from a matrix–free model, hagfish slime threads

2004· article· en· W2056990888 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

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilk-based biomaterials and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHagfishMatrix (chemical analysis)KeratinComposite numberBiologyComputer scienceMaterials scienceGeneticsComposite materialGeneAlgorithmVertebrate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We performed mechanical tests on a matrix-free keratin model-hagfish slime threads-to test the hypothesis that intermediate filaments (IFs) in hydrated hard alpha-keratins are maintained in a partly dehydrated state. This hypothesis predicts that dry IFs should possess mechanical properties similar to the properties of hydrated hard alpha-keratins, and should swell more than hard alpha-keratins in water. Mechanical and swelling measurements of hagfish threads were consistent with both of these predictions, suggesting that an elastomeric keratin matrix resists IF swelling and keeps IF stiffness and yield stress high. The elastomeric nature of the matrix is indirectly supported by the inability of matrix-free IFs (i.e. slime threads) to recover from post-yield deformation. We propose a general conceptual model of the structural mechanics of IF-based materials that predicts the effects of hydration and cross-linking on stiffness, yield stress and extensibility.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · 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