MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522621368 · doi:10.1080/15476286.2016.1236169

The Cajal body and the nucleolus: “In a relationship” or “It's complicated”?

2016· review· en· W2522621368 on OpenAlex
Laura Trinkle‐Mulcahy, Judith Sleeman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRNA Biology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsNucleolusCajal bodyBiologyRibonucleoproteinContext (archaeology)Identification (biology)Evolutionary biologyGeneticsCell biologyRNAGeneNucleusPaleontologyEcologyRNA splicing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From their initial identification as 'nucleolar accessory bodies' more than a century ago, the relationship between Cajal bodies and nucleoli has been a subject of interest and controversy. In this review, we seek to place recent developments in the understanding of the physical and functional relationships between the 2 structures in the context of historical observations. Biophysical models of nuclear body formation, the molecular nature of CB/nucleolus interactions and the increasing list of joint roles for CBs and nucleoli, predominantly in assembling ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes, are discussed.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.329 · 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