MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101215007 · doi:10.1002/sia.3455

The cuticular surface of <i>D. melanogaster</i> : ToF‐SIMS on the fly

2010· article· en· W2101215007 on OpenAlexaff
Joel D. Levine, Jean‐Christophe Billeter, Ulrich J. Krull, R. N. S. Sodhi

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface and Interface Analysis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuticle (hair)Drosophila melanogasterWaferSubstrate (aquarium)On the flyChemistrySurface (topology)NanotechnologyBiological systemBiophysicsMaterials scienceBiochemistryBiologyAnatomyComputer scienceEcologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Insects rely on chemicals to communicate, regulate water balance, and provide a protective barrier against infection. Drosophila melanogaster generates hydrocarbons to perform such functions, and these compounds coat the cuticular surface of the fly. Very little is known about the surface properties of these compounds, how they are arranged and whether they are evenly or unevenly distributed. Here, we begin to address these questions using time of flight (TOF) SIMS. We demonstrate that we can identify synthetic compounds, and that we can detect male–female differences. We used polished silicon wafers as a substrate for the application of synthetic compounds, as well as dissected bits of the cuticle taken from wild‐type males and females. Application of the Bi 3 + cluster source‐obtained spectra that describe the properties of synthetic compounds that served as standards. Spectra obtained from the sections of dissected cuticle were complex but sex‐based differences are evident. Thus, in principle, TOF‐SIMS will be especially informative in future studies that elucidate physical properties of the epicuticular surface of the fly. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurface and Interface AnalysisSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207