MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W249564473 · doi:10.1385/1-59745-151-7:51

<i>C. elegans</i> Deletion Mutant Screening

2006· review· en· W249564473 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Barstead, Donald G. Moerman

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMutagenesisBiologyGeneticsMutantCaenorhabditis elegansGenePolymerase chain reactionDNAMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The methods used by the Caenorhabditis elegans Gene Knockout Consortium are conceptually simple. One does a chemical mutagenesis of wild-type C. elegans, and then screens the progeny of the mutagenized animals, in small mixed groups, using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to identify populations with animals where a portion of DNA bounded by the PCR primers has been deleted. Animals from such populations are then selected and grown clonally to recover a pure genetic strain. We categorize the steps needed to do this as follows: (1) mutagenesis and DNA template preparation, (2) PCR detection of deletions, (3) sibling selection, and (4) deletion stabilization. These are discussed in detail in this chapter.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207