MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074333690 · doi:10.1002/cmr.a.20025

Bicelles as model membranes for solid‐ and solution‐state NMR studies of membrane peptides and proteins

2005· article· en· W2074333690 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

VenueConcepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel lipid bilayerMembraneChemistrySolid-state nuclear magnetic resonanceBiological membraneLipid bilayerMicelleCrystallographyChemical physicsChemical engineeringNuclear magnetic resonancePhysical chemistryLipid bilayer phase behaviorBiochemistryAqueous solutionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bicelles are an attractive membrane mimetic system because of their planar surface and lipid composition, which resemble biological membranes. In addition, their orientation and morphologic properties make them amenable to solid‐ and solution‐state NMR. This article reviews the physical properties of bicelles, such as magnetic alignment and viscosity as well as the different models proposed in the literature to explain the bicelle morphology. The utility of bicelles for studying the interaction and structure of membrane peptides and proteins by solid‐ and solution‐state NMR is also presented, along with the advantages and limitations of bicelles. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Concepts Magn Reson Part A 24A: 17–37, 2005.

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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.287 · 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