MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075341611 · doi:10.1142/s0219720005001065

APPROXIMATE MATCHING OF STRUCTURED MOTIFS IN DNA SEQUENCES

2005· article· en· W2075341611 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia El-Mabrouk, Mathieu Raffinot, Jean-Eudes Duchesne, Mathieu Lajoie, Nicolas Luc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegular expressionPattern matchingAutomatonTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmGenomeMathematicsComputer scienceTime complexityPushdown automatonComputational biologyCombinatoricsBiologyGeneticsArtificial intelligenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several methods have been developed for identifying more or less complex RNA structures in a genome. All these methods are based on the search for conserved primary and secondary sub-structures. In this paper, we present a simple formal representation of a helix, which is a combination of sequence and folding constraints, as a constrained regular expression. This representation allows us to develop a well-founded algorithm that searches for all approximate matches of a helix in a genome. The algorithm is based on an alignment graph constructed from several copies of a pushdown automaton, arranged one on top of another. This is a first attempt to take advantage of the possibilities of pushdown automata in the context of approximate matching. The worst time complexity is O(krpn), where k is the error threshold, n the size of the genome, p the size of the secondary expression, and r its number of union symbols. We then extend the algorithm to search for pseudo-knots and secondary structures containing an arbitrary number of helices.

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 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 score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational BiologySame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207