A generative model for protein contact networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a generative model for protein contact networks (PCNs). The soundness of the proposed model is investigated by focusing primarily on mesoscopic properties elaborated from the spectra of the graph Laplacian. To complement the analysis, we also study the classical topological descriptors, such as statistics of the shortest paths and the important feature of modularity. Our experiments show that the proposed model results in a considerable improvement with respect to two suitably chosen generative mechanisms, mimicking with better approximation real PCNs in terms of diffusion properties elaborated from the normalized Laplacian spectra. However, as well as the other network models, it does not reproduce with sufficient accuracy the shortest paths structure. To compensate this drawback, we designed a second step involving a targeted edge reconfiguration process. The ensemble of reconfigured networks denotes further improvements that are statistically significant. As an important byproduct of our study, we demonstrate that modularity, a well-known property of proteins, does not entirely explain the actual network architecture characterizing PCNs. In fact, we conclude that modularity, intended as a quantification of an underlying community structure, should be considered as an emergent property of the structural organization of proteins. Interestingly, such a property is suitably optimized in PCNs together with the feature of path efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".