Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting in 1969 laser scissors have been used to study and manipulate chromosomes in mitotic animal cells. Key studies demonstrated that using the "hot spot" in the center of a focused Gaussian laser beam it was possible to delete the ribosomal genes (secondary constriction), and this deficiency was maintained in clonal daughter cells. It wasn't until 2020 that it was demonstrated that cells with focal-point damaged chromosomes could replicate due to the cell's DNA damage repair molecular machinery. A series of studies leading up to this conclusion involved using cells expressing different GFP DNA damage recognition and repair molecules. With the advent of optical tweezers in 1987, laser tweezers have been used to study the behavior and forces on chromosomes in mitotic and meiotic cells. The combination of laser scissors and tweezers were employed since 1991 to study various aspects of chromosome behavior during cell division. These studies involved holding chromosomes in an optical while gradually reducing the laser power until the chromosome recovered their movement toward the cell pole. It was determined in collaborative studies with Prof. Arthur Forer from York University, Toronto, Canada, cells from diverse group vertebrate and invertebrates, that forces necessary to move chromosomes to cell poles during cell division were between 2 and 17pN, orders of magnitude below the 700 pN generally found in the literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".