MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620297444 · doi:10.1016/bs.mie.2017.04.005

What Combined Measurements From Structures and Imaging Tell Us About DNA Damage Responses

2017· review· en· W2620297444 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris A. Brosey, Zamal Ahmed, Susan P. Lees‐Miller, John A. Tainer

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in enzymology on CD-ROM/Methods in enzymology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNA damageContext (archaeology)Computational biologyDNA repairDNAFlexibility (engineering)BiologyCell biologyFidelityBiophysicsNanotechnologyGeneticsComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMethods in enzymology on CD-ROM/Methods in enzymologySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207