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 OpenAlexaff
J. T. Trevors

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations31
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComptes Rendus BiologiesSame topicMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207