MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Weapons of mass retraction

2005· review· en· W2112084168 on OpenAlexafffund
Lori L. Burrows

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsPilusPeriplasmic spaceBiologyFlagellumBacterial conjugationFimbriae ProteinsSecretionCell envelopeFunction (biology)VirulenceBacteriaCell biologyComputational biologyMicrobiologyEscherichia coliGeneticsGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twitching motility is a unique form of bacterial propulsion on solid surfaces associated with cycles of extension, tethering and retraction of type IV pili (T4P). Although investigations over the last two decades in a number of species have identified the majority of the genes involved in this process, we are still learning how these pili are assembled and the mechanics by which bacteria use T4P to drag themselves from one place to another. Among the puzzles that remain to be solved is the mechanism by which hydrolysis of ATP is coupled to pilus assembly and disassembly, and how the cell envelope structure is modified to accommodate the passage of the pilus through the periplasm. Unravelling of these and other enigmas in the T4P system will not only teach us more about these important colonization and virulence factors, but also help us to understand related processes such as type II secretion, which relies on a set of proteins homologous to those in the T4P system, and bacterial conjugation, involving retractable pili belonging to the F-like subgroup of the type IV secretion family. This review focuses on recent discoveries relating to the assembly and function of T4P in generation of twitching motility.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearchResearch integrity
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearchScholarly communicationResearch integrity
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score1.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

MetaresearchResearch integrityScholarly communication

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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

Citations203
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207