Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ionizing radiation is commonly thought to be dangerous to, and even incompatible with, terrestrial life, due to its damaging effects on vital biomolecules like DNA. However, there exist organisms such as tardigrades, as well as several bacterial species, such as Deinococcus radiodurans, which have been observed to survive exposure to radiation levels in excess of 5000 Gy. This is accomplished by differing mechanisms, but in general involve processes to protect or rapidly repair molecules such as DNA that are damaged by the high-energy ionizing radiation. In this Letter to the iScientist, current understanding of the biology of radioresistant organisms is summarized. Subsequently, it is argued that furthering our understanding of these organisms and the mechanisms by which they withstand ionizing radiation have important applications for a variety of fields. These include applications to the astrobiological search for life beyond Earth, as understanding the potential limits of radioresistance may allow for the expansion or constraint of possible environments in which extraterrestrial life may survive, guiding future life detection efforts. At the same time, mechanisms of DNA repair in radioresistant organisms may provide avenues of exploration in the search for interventions that may be applied to addressing DNA damage in humans, a problem associated both with cancer and aging.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".