MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Honeypots and limitations of deception

2005· article· en· W35235785 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maximillian Dornseif, Thorsten Holz, Sven Oliver Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStanford Cancer InstituteNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesIllinois Humanities CouncilNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsDeceptionHoneypotComputer scienceComputer securityPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inherited pathogenic succinate dehydrogenase (SDHx) gene mutations cause the hereditary pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma tumor syndrome. Syndromic tumors exhibit elevated succinate, an oncometabolite that is proposed to drive tumorigenesis via DNA and histone hypermethylation, mitochondrial expansion, and pseudohypoxia-related gene expression. To interrogate this prevailing model, we disrupt mouse adrenal medulla SDHB expression, which recapitulates several key molecular features of human SDHx tumors, including succinate accumulation but not 5hmC loss, HIF accumulation, or tumorigenesis. By contrast, concomitant SDHB and the neurofibromin 1 tumor suppressor disruption yields SDHx-like pheochromocytomas. Unexpectedly, in vivo depletion of the 2-oxoglutarate (2-OG) dioxygenase cofactor ascorbate reduces SDHB-deficient cell survival, indicating that SDHx loss may be better tolerated by tissues with high antioxidant capacity. Contrary to the prevailing oncometabolite model, succinate accumulation and 2-OG-dependent dioxygenase inhibition are insufficient for mouse pheochromocytoma tumorigenesis, which requires additional growth-regulatory pathway activation.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207