MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071889691 · doi:10.1142/s012962640700296x

ASPECTS OF BIOMOLECULAR COMPUTING

2007· article· en· W2071889691 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

VenueParallel Processing Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Biological Computing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMembrane computingDNA computingNatural computingComputer scienceUnconventional computingField (mathematics)ComputationProcess (computing)Theoretical computer scienceSupercomputerDistributed computingComputational scienceParallel computingAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is intended as a survey of the state of the art of some branches of Biomolecular Computing. Biomolecular Computing aims to use biological hardware (biomare), rather than chips, to build a computer. We discuss the following three main research directions: DNA computing, membrane systems, and gene assembly in ciliates. DNA computing combines practical results together with theoretical algorithm design. Various search problems have been implemented using DNA strands. Membrane systems are a family of computational models inspired by the membrane structure of living cells. The process of gene assembly in ciliates has been formalized as an abstract computational model. Biomolecular Computing is a field in full development, with the promise of important results from the perspective of both Computer Science (models of computation) and Biology (understanding biological processes).

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.253 · 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