MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098671627 · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a003376

Planar Cell Polarity: Keeping Hairs Straight Is Not So Simple

2009· review· en· W2098671627 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

VenueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicWnt/β-catenin signaling in development and cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPolarity (international relations)Cell polarityBristleCell biologyPolarization (electrochemistry)Evolutionary biologyCellGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fur on a cat's back, the scales on a fish, or the bristles on a fly are all beautifully organized, with a high degree of polarization in their surface organization. Great progress has been made in understanding how individual cell polarity is established, but our understanding of how cells coordinate their polarity in forming coherent tissues is still fragmentary. The organization of cells in the plane of the epithelium is known as planar cell polarity (PCP), and studies in the past decade have delineated a genetic pathway for the control of PCP. This review will first briefly review data from the Drosophila field, where PCP was first identified and genetically characterized, and then explore how vertebrate tissues become polarized during development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · 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