MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122359996 · doi:10.1366/11-06398

Review of Super-Resolution Fluorescence Microscopy for Biology

2011· review· en· W2122359996 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

VenueApplied Spectroscopy · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTED microscopyMicroscopyFluorescence microscopePhotoactivated localization microscopySuper-resolution microscopyResolution (logic)NanotechnologyLight sheet fluorescence microscopyFluorescenceOpticsMaterials scienceStimulated emissionPhysicsComputer scienceLaserArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several methodologies have been developed over the past several years for super-resolution fluorescence microscopy including saturated structured-illumination microscopy (SSIM), stimulated emission depletion microscopy (STED), photoactivated localization microscopy (PALM), fluorescence photoactivation localization microscopy (FPALM), and stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM). While they have shown great promise for biological research, these techniques all have individual strengths and weaknesses. This review will describe the basic principles for achieving super resolution, demonstrate some applications in biology, and provide an overview of technical considerations for implementing these methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.336 · 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