Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermoregulation at organism level is the well-established fact. The question on possibility of thermoregulation at the cell level remains opened. Based on study of distribution of chromosomal heterochromatin regions (HRs) in various human populations, in norm and at some forms of pathology the hypothesis about thermoregulation existence at the cell level has been presented. The essence of hypothesis of cell thermoregulation (СТ) is elimination of the temperature difference between the nucleus and cytoplasm when the nucleus temperature becomes higher than the cytoplasm temperature. The nucleus, in contrast to the cytoplasm, cannot conduct heat directly in the extracellular space, from where the heat is taken by the circulating flow of sap, lymph and blood. Thus, the nucleus can conduct heat only in the cytoplasm. With this, the nucleus has two options for the dissipation of heat surplus: either by increasing its volume or increasing the heat conductivity of the nuclear envelope. As the first option is limited, and the second one is hampered because of thickness of the cell membranes, apparently the higher eukaryotes took advantage of the opportunity of a dense layer of peripheral condensed chromatin (CC) as heat conductor for a more efficient elimination of the temperature difference between the nucleus and cytoplasm. The СС localized between a nucleus and cytoplasm is made of different types of chromosomal HRs. For this reason, СС is subject to wide variability in population. Obviously, the density of the СС packing depends on the type and quantity of chromosomal HRs in its structure that can affect upon its heat-conducting ability. If the situation is this then we are entitled to expect a new type of variability with all consequences resulting from here.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".