Bibliographic record
Abstract
“The scientist, by the very nature of his commitment, creates more and more questions, never fewer. Indeed the measure of our intellectual maturity, one philosopher suggests, is our capacity to feel less and less satisfied with our answers to better problems.” \n~G.W. Allport, Becoming, 1955 \n\n\tIt will be interesting to look back at this thesis in a few decades and reflect on how the questions and interpretation of data in the field of developmental biology have changed. Indeed, a biologist currently in their twilight years might reflect on their youth, before the discovery of hereditary material, and compare that bookend with the range of genome sequences and related knowledge currently available. How long will it take before this thesis reads like a debate about whether the male or female contributed the ‘homunculus,’ a miniature preformed human to the embryo that grows into an adult?\n\tIn this thesis I asked three related questions: whether the role of Oct4 during embryogenesis provides insight into its contribution to pluripotency; how surfaceome changes contribute to functional maturation of neural stem cells and to what extent the murine genome is imprinted. Our data indicate that Oct4 is required for posterior expansion. We propose that the function of the protein is conserved, but that its expression has been coopted to yield different cell types based on its combination with different factors. We show that fundamental aspects of cell biology are altered during the maturation from pluripotent populations to neural stem cells, and identify mediators of proliferation, survival and adhesion that distinguish neural stem cell regulation from their precursors. Finally, we validated discovery of a dozen novel imprinted transcripts using a genomic approach. These discoveries will contribute to a holistic view of the causes and consequences of imprinting, but do not support a paradigm shift in the scale and consequences of imprinting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".