MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104264105 · doi:10.1080/17486700902789355

A Mixed‐Culture Model of a Probiotic Biofilm Control System

2009· article· en· W2104264105 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsAdvanced Foods and Materials Network
KeywordsBiofilmProbioticBacteriaAerosolizationDiffusionMicrobiologyChemistryBiomass (ecology)Biological systemChemical engineeringBiologyEcologyThermodynamicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a mathematical model and computer simulations for the control of a pathogenic biofilm by a probiotic biofilm. This is a substantial extension of a previous model of control of a pathogenic biofilm by microbial control agents that are suspended in the aqueous bulk phase (H. Khassehkhan and H.J. Eberl, Comp. Math. Meth. Med, 9(1) (2008), pp. 47-67). The mathematical model is a system of double-degenerate diffusion-reaction equations for the microbial biomass fractions probiotics, pathogens and inert bacteria, coupled with convection-diffusion-reaction equations for two growth controlling substrates, protonated lactic acids and hydrogen ions (pH). The latter are produced by the bacteria and become detrimental at high concentrations. In simulation studies, we find that the site of attachment of probiotics in the flow channel is crucial for success and efficacy of the probiotic control mechanism.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.270 · 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