MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940613650

Deep Earth zombie bugs went global

2013· article· en· W2940613650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine Brahic

Bibliographic record

VenueThe New Scientist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrobiologyCrustnobodyZombieImpact craterArcticThe arcticGeologyEarth scienceEarth (classical element)OceanographyGeographyPaleontologyPhysicsAstronomyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The same 19 microbes are found throughout Earth's crust from Canada to Indonesia, most likely living at the very limit of life. Nobody knows how these cosmopolitan bugs went global. On the surface, different places are home to different organisms, even if conditions are similar: Antarctica has penguins, but the Arctic has polar bears. A species only spreads widely if it can travel freely. Matt Schrenk is part of a global team probing depths up to 2 kilometers beneath the surface. They use mineshafts, wells and drilling rigs, scattered around the world. Samples are sent to the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole MA, where Sharon Grim analyses the DNA they hold.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.030

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe New ScientistSame topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207