MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088570016 · doi:10.3390/ijms21197011

A Review of Starch Biosynthesis in Relation to the Building Block-Backbone Model

2020· review· en· W3088570016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarchAmyloplastGranule (geology)ChemistryBiochemistryPlastidCarbohydrateBiosynthesisBiologyGeneChloroplast

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starch is a water-insoluble polymer of glucose synthesized as discrete granules inside the stroma of plastids in plant cells. Starch reserves provide a source of carbohydrate for immediate growth and development, and act as long term carbon stores in endosperms and seed tissues for growth of the next generation, making starch of huge agricultural importance. The starch granule has a highly complex hierarchical structure arising from the combined actions of a large array of enzymes as well as physicochemical self-assembly mechanisms. Understanding the precise nature of granule architecture, and how both biological and abiotic factors determine this structure is of both fundamental and practical importance. This review outlines current knowledge of granule architecture and the starch biosynthesis pathway in relation to the building block-backbone model of starch structure. We highlight the gaps in our knowledge in relation to our understanding of the structure and synthesis of starch, and argue that the building block-backbone model takes accurate account of both structural and biochemical data.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.299 · 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