MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139153830 · doi:10.1107/s0907444900010283

Low-resolution phase extension using wavelet analysis

2000· article· en· W2139153830 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

VenueActa Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEnzyme Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletResolution (logic)HistogramElectron densityWavelet transformMatching (statistics)Low resolutionDiscrete wavelet transformExtension (predicate logic)MathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmMaterials sciencePhysicsComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceStatisticsElectronHigh resolutionGeologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method to extend low-resolution phases is presented which uses histogram matching not only of the electron density, but also of histograms obtained from the different levels of detail provided by the wavelet transform of the electron density. Statistical values for the wavelet coefficients can be predicted and depend only on the resolution and solvent content. Therefore, new details can be added to an electron-density map by matching the values of the wavelet coefficients to those predicted for an increased resolution. The positions of the new details are also guided by the diffraction pattern. In this way, the resolution can be increased gradually; on a number of trial structures of different size, solvent percentage and space group, it has been possible to extend the phasing from 10 A to around 6-7 A.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · 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