Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer models have been widely used to numerically simulate the physical dynamics of vocal fold oscillation in phonation. Computer simulations have allowed the exploration of a much wider parameter space and a much longer time scale than what would be very costly or sometimes impossible with animal and human models. In the past 10 years, our team uses a combined in vivo, in vitro, and in silico approach to understand the biological mechanism underlying the formation of vocal lesions. The ultimate goal is to identify key biological and physical factors associated with the pathogenesis of and recovery from vocal fold injury that will be useful for personalized voice restoration. Tissue injury and repair is a complex process that involves multiple cells types and molecular signals. We developed 3D agent-based models at a physiological scale to simulate and visualize the cellular and molecular response to vocal injury and treatment. Significant progress has made to improve the model’s computational speed and visualization features using our hybrid CPU-GPU computing platform. Gaps however still exist between the model and the reality. In this talk, I will present what we have achieved so far as well as what challenges we are facing in biological computing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".