MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of select innate immune mechanisms of fish and mammals

2005· review· en· W2089142449 on OpenAlexafffund
Debbie A. Plouffe, Patrick C. Hanington, John G. Walsh, Elaine C. Wilson, Miodrag Belosevic

Bibliographic record

VenueXenotransplantation · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Council
KeywordsInnate immune systemBiologyAcquired immune systemFish <Actinopterygii>ImmunityImmune systemImmunologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of innate immunity has become increasingly popular since the discovery of homologs of many of the innate immune system components and pathways in lower organisms including invertebrates. As fish occupy a key position in the evolution of the innate and adaptive immune responses, there has been a great deal of interest regarding similarities and differences between their defense mechanisms and those of higher vertebrates. This review focuses on describing select mechanisms of the innate immune responses of fish and the implications for evolution of immunity in higher vertebrates.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations125
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueXenotransplantationSame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207