MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413272761 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-647-9:245

High-Resolution Analysis of the 3D Organization of Human Metaphase Chromosomes

2003· article· en· W2413272761 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stefan Thalhammer, Pietro Gobbi, Mirella Falconi, Giovanni Mazzotti, Wolfgang M. Heckl

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, San FranciscoUniversität BremenUniversità di BolognaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoLomonosov Moscow State UniversityUniversità degli Studi di Urbino Carlo BoMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of OxfordCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversità degli Studi di GenovaUniversity of CreteGriffith UniversityLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryHokkaido UniversityVrije Universiteit BrusselUniversität BaselUniversity of PortsmouthCarnegie Mellon University
KeywordsMetaphaseResolution (logic)Transmission electron microscopyMicroscopyElectron microscopeScanning confocal electron microscopyMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeOpticsChromosomeNanotechnologyBiologyPhysicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The detailed understanding of the nuclear cell functions requires an accurate knowledge of the spatial organization of their structures. For many years the study of human metaphase chromosomes was conducted with light microscopy after staining protocols disturbing the native chromosomal structure. The approach by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) provides higher resolution as compared with light microscopy and permits surface analysis of the chromosomal structure, which cannot be adequately obtained from transmission electron microscopy. Nevertheless, to obtain high resolution in SEM observations, the use of a high electron accelerating voltage (up to 30 kV) is required (). With these experimental conditions, the sputter coating or a conductive staining of the samples is generally required (,). Both procedures allow electron-charging dispersion from the sample but may obscure fine details and produce sample alterations ().

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207