MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547113222 · doi:10.1002/cpps.19

Computational Prediction of Protein Secondary Structure from Sequence

2016· article· en· W2547113222 on OpenAlex

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

VenueCurrent Protocols in Protein Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsSequence (biology)Computational biologyProtein secondary structureBiologyComputer scienceChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Secondary structure of proteins refers to local and repetitive conformations, such as α-helices and β-strands, which occur in protein structures. Computational prediction of secondary structure from protein sequences has a long history with three generations of predictive methods. This unit summarizes several recent third-generation predictors. We discuss their inputs and outputs, availability, and predictive performance and explain how to perform and interpret their predictions. We cover methods for the prediction of the 3-class secondary structure states (helix, strand, and coil) as well as the 8-class secondary structure states. Recent empirical assessments and our small-scale analysis reveal that these predictions are characterized by high levels of accuracy, between 70% and 80%. We emphasize that modern predictors are available to end users in the form of convenient-to-use Web servers and stand-alone software. © 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.294 · 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