MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166549567 · doi:10.1002/anie.201303461

Structure of the Parallel Duplex of Poly(A) RNA: Evaluation of a 50 Year‐Old Prediction

2013· article· en· W2166549567 on OpenAlexaff
Nozhat Safaee, Anne M. Noronha, Dmitry A. Rodionov, Guennadi Kozlov, Christopher J. Wilds, George M. Sheldrick, Kalle Gehring

Bibliographic record

VenueAngewandte Chemie International Edition · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRNAHelix (gastropod)Crystal structureCrystallographyAb initioComputer scienceDuplex (building)Service (business)ChemistryComputational biologyCombinatoricsInformation retrievalMathematicsBiochemistryBiologyDNAGeneOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The other double helix: The molecular structure of double-stranded poly(rA) was predicted in 1961, but it has only now been confirmed. The crystal structure of the parallel double helix of (rA)11 obtained at physiological pH was solved using ab initio direct methods and refined to 1.0 Å resolution. The crystals have bound ammonium ions that are complexed by the RNA phosphates and adenine N1 atoms (see section of the structure). As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer reviewed and may be re-organized for online delivery, but are not copy-edited or typeset. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations54
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngewandte Chemie International EditionSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207