MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161108411 · doi:10.1016/j.xpro.2021.100536

Generation, maintenance, and monitoring of gnotobiotic mice

2021· article· en· W3161108411 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSTAR Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Health Services
KeywordsBiologySterility16S ribosomal RNABacteriaGram stainingStainingMicrobiologyComputational biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gnotobiology has revolutionized the study of microbiota-host interactions. This protocol explains how to generate, maintain, and monitor gnotobiotic mice. Three monitoring methods are presented and compared: bacterial culture, microscopy to visualize the presence (or absence) of bacteria using Gram staining or DNA staining, and 16S rRNA gene amplification and sequencing. The generation and maintenance of gnotobiotic animals should be performed in a germ-free and gnotobiotic facility to guarantee sterility and precision of gnotobiotic conditions. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to McDonald et al., 2020.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.292 · 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