MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972156976 · doi:10.1042/etls20190026

Toward long-lasting artificial cells that better mimic natural living cells

2019· article· en· W2972156976 on OpenAlexaff
Noël Yeh Martín, Luca Valer, Sheref S. Mansy

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Topics in Life Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGiovanni Armenise-Harvard FoundationSimons Foundation
KeywordsArtificial cellSynthetic biologyArtificial lifeLiving systemsChemical communicationNatural (archaeology)Computer sciencePopulationArtificial intelligenceBiologyBiochemical engineeringEcologyEngineeringComputational biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical communication is ubiquitous in biology, and so efforts in building convincing cellular mimics must consider how cells behave on a population level. Simple model systems have been built in the laboratory that show communication between different artificial cells and artificial cells with natural, living cells. Examples include artificial cells that depend on purely abiological components and artificial cells built from biological components and are driven by biological mechanisms. However, an artificial cell solely built to communicate chemically without carrying the machinery needed for self-preservation cannot remain active for long periods of time. What is needed is to begin integrating the pathways required for chemical communication with metabolic-like chemistry so that robust artificial systems can be built that better inform biology and aid in the generation of new technologies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging Topics in Life SciencesSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207