MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066755336 · doi:10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.06.019

Correlations between recombination rate and intron distributions along chromosomes of C. elegans

2009· article· en· W2066755336 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Li, Guoqing Liu, Xuhua Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Natural Science Materials International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRecombinationIntronBiologyRecombination rateGeneticsGeneCaenorhabditis elegans

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generally speaking, the intron size positively correlates with recombination rate in Caenorhabditis elegans genome. Here, we analyze the correlations between recombination rate and some measures of different intron lengths so as to know whether the recombination influences the introns of different lengths in the same way. Results show that the correlation between the recombination rate and the percentage of short introns (<100 bp) is negative, but the correlation between the recombination rate and the percentage of introns that are larger than 500 bp is positive. Average intron length correlates positively with the recombination rate for introns whose length is in the range of 100–1000 bp. We speculate that the recombination mainly exerts impact on introns whose length ranges from 100–1000 bp. We also show that the average intron number per gene correlates negatively with the recombination rate.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
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 venueProgress in Natural Science Materials InternationalSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207