Proposed Systematic Nomenclature for Orbitides
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
Orbitides are short (5-11 amino acid residue), ribosomally synthesized homodetic plant cyclic peptides characterized by N-to-C amide bonds rather than disulfide bonds. Orbitides can be discovered using mass spectrometry of plant extracts or by identifying DNA sequences coding for the precursor protein. The number of orbitides that have been characterized to date, by a number of different research groups, is modest. The nomenclatural system currently used for the Type VI cyclic peptides has been developed in an ad hoc fashion and is somewhat arbitrary. We propose a systematic naming system specifically for the Type VI cyclic peptides that reflects the taxonomic name of the species producing the orbitides and a numbering system that enables systematic representation of amino acid residues and modifications. The proposed naming system emulates the IUPAC Nomenclature for Natural Products and UniProt, both of which use abbreviations of taxonomic names for the compounds in question. Nomenclature for post-translational modifications also follows the IUPAC precedent, as well as the cyclic peptide literature. Furthermore, the proposed system aims to maintain agreement with the precedents set by the pre-existing literature. An example of the proposed nomenclature is provided using the methionine-containing homodetic peptides of Linum usitatissimum (flaxseed).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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