MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112014780 · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00038-13

The Singular Quest for a Universal Tree of Life

2013· article· en· W2112014780 on OpenAlexafffund
Jan Sapp, George E. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaSwedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher EducationGeorgia Institute of Technology
KeywordsTree of life (biology)BiologyThree-domain systemProkaryoteEvolutionary biologyBiological evolutionArchaeaGeneticsEpistemologyPhylogeneticsGenePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carl Woese developed a unique research program, based on rRNA, for discerning bacterial relationships and constructing a universal tree of life. Woese's interest in the evolution of the genetic code led to him to investigate the deep roots of evolution, develop the concept of the progenote, and conceive of the Archaea. In so doing, he and his colleagues at the University of Illinois in Urbana revolutionized microbiology and brought the classification of microbes into an evolutionary framework. Woese also provided definitive evidence for the role of symbiosis in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell while underscoring the importance of lateral gene transfer in microbial evolution. Woese and colleagues' proposal of three fundamental domains of life was brought forward in direct conflict with the prokaryote-eukaryote dichotomy. Together with several colleagues and associates, he brought together diverse evidence to support the rRNA evidence for the fundamentally tripartite nature of life. This paper aims to provide insight into his accomplishments, how he achieved them, and his place in the history of biology.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiology and Molecular Biology ReviewsSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207