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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of designing DNA codes, namely sets of equi-length words over the alphabet [A, C, G, T] that satisfy certain combinatorial constraints. This problem is motivated by the task of reliably storing and retrieving information in synthetic DNA strands for use in DNA computing or as molecular bar codes in chemical libraries. The primary constraints that we consider, defined with respect to a parameter d, are as follows: for every pair of words w, x in a code, there are at least d mismatches between w and x if w not equal x and also between the reverse of w and the Watson-Crick complement of x. Extending classical results from coding theory, we present several upper and lower bounds on the maximum size of such DNA codes and give methods for constructing such codes. An additional constraint that is relevant to the design of DNA codes is that the free energies and enthalpies of the code words, and thus the melting temperatures, be similar. We describe dynamic programming algorithms that can (a) calculate the total number of words of length n whose free energy value, as approximated by a formula of Breslauer et al. (1986) falls in a given range, and (b) output a random such word. These algorithms are intended for use in heuristic algorithms for constructing DNA codes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it