MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808966859 · doi:10.1103/physreve.98.032114

Dimensionality-dependent crossover in motility of polyvalent burnt-bridges ratchets

2018· article· en· W2808966859 on OpenAlexafffund
Chapin S. Korosec, Martin J. Zuckermann, Nancy R. Forde

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsTrack (disk drive)Monte Carlo methodStatistical physicsPhysicsCurse of dimensionalityDiffusionCrossoverComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The burnt-bridges ratchet (BBR) mechanism is a model for biased molecular motion whereby the construct destroys track binding sites as it progresses and therefore acts as a diffusing forager, seeking new substrate sites. Using Monte Carlo simulations that implement the Gillespie algorithm, we investigate the kinetic characteristics of simple polyvalent BBRs as they move on tracks of increasing width. We find that as the track width is increased the BBRs remain nearly ballistic for considerable track widths proportional to the span (leg length) of the polyvalent walker before transitioning to near-conventional diffusion on two-dimensional tracks. We find there exists a trade-off in BBR track association time and superdiffusivity in the BBR design parameter space of span, polyvalency, and track width. Furthermore, we develop an analytical model to describe the ensemble-average motion on the track and find it is in good agreement with our Gillespie simulation results. This work offers insights into design criteria for de novo BBRs and their associated tracks, where experimentalists seek to optimize directionality and track association time.

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 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.316 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207