MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342235473 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-958-3:265

Assessing Telomeric Phenotypes

2005· article· en· W2342235473 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine LeBel, Michel Larrivée, Amadou Bah, Nancy Laterreur, Nancy Lvesque, Raymund J. Wellinger

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTelomereTelomeraseBiologyGeneticsSenescenceGenomeModel organismChromosomePhenotypeSubtelomereEukaryotic chromosome fine structureComputational biologyDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of telomeres as being the end-part of eukaryotic chromosomes was first described by H. J. Muller and B. McClintock. Their pioneering work opened the path for multiple new researches and assays on a thrilling subject, with implications for various domains such as aging, replication, immortality, and cancer. Yeast has been a model of choice to study telomere length, senescence, telomerase activity, telomere cloning, and sequencing with important new techniques being discovered in this species and adapted afterward for other organisms. The main functions of telomeres include the protection of the genome from deletions, recombination, and degradation, and they are therefore essential for genome stability. Their maintenance is assured by a specific enzyme (telomerase) and it is of vital interest for the organism to maintain their length and specific structure. Multiple assays have been described to analyze telomere length and for yeast, Southern blot analysis of terminal restriction fragments (TRFs) remains one of the most popular ones to get a global picture of the state of telomeres in a given experimental setting. However, growth phenotypes (senescence) and fine-structure analyses of the chromosome terminal DNA are also becoming increasingly important.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207