MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516306976 · doi:10.1002/9781119009115.ch11

How Bacteria are Affected by Toxic Metal Release

2016· other· en· W2516306976 on OpenAlexaff
Mathew L. Frankel, Sean C. Booth, Raymond J. Turner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChromium effects and bioremediation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental chemistryBiodiversityMetalEcosystemAssimilation (phonology)Phylogenetic diversityBacteriaHeavy metalsChemistryBiologyAstrobiologyEcologyBiochemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metals and microbes are found everywhere on our planet; the ubiquity of each has led to their interactions over millennia, and has contributed to their reliance on each other to some degree. Some metals are essential to life, fulfilling chemical roles unattainable by organic molecules alone, while others are nonessential and have no known physiological role. All metals, however, are toxic in excessive concentrations, and can be found in the environment in excess due to anthropogenic activities. Over evolutionary history, microbes have accrued genetic adaptations to mediate the toxic effects of metal ion exposure; even so, no single strategy has been found to provide resistance to all toxic metals. This is likely a reflection of the physicochemical diversity of metal ions, as many metals ions can cause oxidative stress that can deplete cellular antioxidant reserves, which if overwhelmed can result in cellular damage or death. Other toxic mechanisms include replacement of metal co-factors in biomolecules, as well as mutagenic effects, microbial membrane damage, and/or affecting nutrient assimilation. Diversity is necessary for a healthy ecosystem, and these toxic effects of metal exposure can reduce microbial biodiversity in an environment.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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)0.1050.004

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.183 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChromium effects and bioremediationFrench-language works237,207