MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125903891 · doi:10.3390/80100127

An Exploration of Dynamics of the Moving Mechanism of the Growth Cone

2003· article· en· W2125903891 on OpenAlexaff
Rubin Wang, Hatsuo Hayashi, Zhikang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsProtein filamentMyosinMolecular motorMyosin headPhysicsActinThermal fluctuationsMechanicsChemistryBiophysicsMaterials scienceNanotechnologyThermodynamicsBiologyMyosin light-chain kinase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A stochastic, nonlinear dynamic model is proposed to explain the growth cone at the tip of a cell process, such as a growing axon or dendrite of a neuron. The model explains the outward motion of the tip as an extension of the cytoskeleton, using the actin- myosin system as a molecular motor. The kinetic energy is supplied by heat from ATP hydrolysis in the form of random motion of water molecules embedding the actin- myosin. The mechanical structure is provided by the F-actin macromolecules forming a spiral filament. The myosin heads form a stochastic distribution of small spheres. They are attached by elastic springs to the spiral rods of the myosin filaments. Under thermal agitation the system sustains oscillation, which is directed by the interaction between the myosin heads and the actin filament. As the energy of oscillation is dissipated, the actin filament is moved toward the center of the growth cone. The joint probability density of movement of the actin filament is obtained by solving a non-stationary version of the FPK equation. By incorporating a probability distribution of actin filaments provided by the geometry of the tip, the directed motion of the tip is explained.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207