MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098380052 · doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2011.02.010

Hypothesized origin of microbial life in a prebiotic gel and the transition to a living biofilm and microbial mats

2011· review· en· W2098380052 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

VenueComptes Rendus Biologies · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofilmPrebioticAbiogenesisLimitingChemistryChemical engineeringBiologyBacteriaAstrobiologyFood scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article hypothesizes that the origin of the first microbial cell(s) occurred as a series of increasing levels of organization within a prebiotic gel attached to a mineral surface, which made the transition to a biofilm composed of the first cell(s) capable of growth and division. A gel microenvironment attached to a surface for the origin of life, and subsequent living cells offers numerous advantages. These include acting as a water and nutrient trap on a surface, physical protection as well as protection from UV radiation. The prebiotic gel and the living biofilm contained the necessary water, does not impede diffusion of molecules including gases, provides a structured gel microscopic location for biochemical interactions and polymerisation reactions, where the necessary molecules for life need to be present and not limiting. The composition of the first gel environment may have been an oily-water mixture (or the interface between an oily-water mixture) of microscopic dimensions, but large enough for the organization of the first cell(s). The living biofilm then made the evolutionary transition to a microbial mat.

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)0.001
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 score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.215 · 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