MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121114659 · doi:10.1177/0306312707082969

Molecular Embodiments and the Body-work of Modeling in Protein Crystallography

2008· article· en· W2121114659 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Studies of Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicScience Education and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMolecular graphicsProcess (computing)Embodied cognitionComputer graphicsGraphicsResource (disambiguation)Human–computer interactionData scienceComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein molecules, those objects of increasing interest and investment in post-genomics research, are complex, three-dimensional structures made up of thousands of atoms. Protein crystallographers build atomic-resolution models of proteins using the techniques of X-ray diffraction. This ethnographic study of protein crystallography shows that becoming an expert crystallographer, and so making sense of such intricate objects, requires researchers to draw on their bodies as a resource to learn about, work with, and communicate precise molecular configurations. Contemporary crystallographic modeling relies intensively on interactive computer graphics technology, and requires active and prolonged handling and manipulation of the model onscreen throughout the often arduous process of model-building. This paper builds on both ethnographic observations of contemporary protein crystallographers and historical accounts of early molecular modeling techniques to examine the body-work of crystallographic modeling, in particular the corporeal practices through which modelers learn the intricate structures of protein molecules. Ethnographic observations suggest that, in the process of building and manipulating protein models, crystallographers also sculpt embodied models alongside the digital renderings they craft onscreen. Crystallographic modeling at the computer interface is thus not only a means of producing representations of proteins; it is also a means of training novice crystallographers' bodies and imaginations. Protein crystallographers' molecular embodiments thus offer a site for posing a new range of questions for studies of the visual cultures and knowledge practices in the computer-mediated life sciences.

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.

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
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptMetaresearchScience and technology studies
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.291 · 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