MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196854727 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.103049

Pushing the methodological envelope in understanding the photo/electrosynthetic materials-microorganism interface

2021· review· en· W3196854727 on OpenAlexaff
Kiran Kuruvinashetti, Nikolay Kornienko

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Fuel Cells and Bioremediation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersAmerican Chemical Society
KeywordsInterface (matter)NanotechnologyEnvelope (radar)MicroorganismAstrobiologyChemistryEngineering physicsMaterials scienceComputer scienceBiologyEngineeringTelecommunicationsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biohybrid photo/electrosynthetic systems synergize microbial metabolic pathways and inorganic materials to generate the fuels and chemicals to power our society. They aim to combine the strengths of product selectivity from biological cells and efficient charge generation and light absorption of inorganic materials. However crucial mechanistic questions still remain. In this review we address significant knowledge gaps that must be closed and recent efforts to do so to push biohybrid systems closer to applicability. In particular, we focus on noteworthy advances that have recently been made in applying state-of-the-art analytical spectroscopic, electrochemical, and microelectronic techniques to help pinpoint key complexities of the microbe-materials interface. We discuss the basic function of these techniques, how they have been translated over to study biohybrid systems, and which key insights and implications have been extracted. Finally, we delve into the key advances necessary for the design of next generation biohybrid energy conversion systems.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicMicrobial Fuel Cells and BioremediationFrench-language works237,207