Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is rather astonishing to note how during last decades the human microbiota has gained a considerable large and heterogeneous attention not only from medical practice and scientific environments but also from the large public opinion. In addition of registering a significant burst on the commercial use of prebiotics and probiotics, during the last years it has been also possible to observe the resurgence of some specific medical procedures such as colon cleanse and fecal transplants. Though still mostly empiric, it might worth noticing as well that large efforts and important advancements on microbiota research have been registered. Indeed, an increasing number of scientists are suggesting to consider microbiota as an additional human organ. This however, could be semantically and conventionally difficult to be accepted. Once microbiota is not composed by eukaryotic cells, it would be easier to rather consider it is a kind of symbiotic entity. Alternatively, but much more irreverent and provocative, it would be necessary to redefine the anatomo-functional architecture of humans (and probably most superior animals) as a kind of condominium composed by both eukaryotic and prokaryotic elements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".