Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempts were made to initiate the primary and secondary humoral immune responses to sheep red blood cells (SRBC) in vitro as determined by the hemolytic plaque-forming cell (PFC) response, with cell suspensions prepared from a variety of lymphoid organs of the rabbit – thymus, bone marrow, spleen, appendix, sacculus rotundus, Peyer’s patches, popliteal lymph node and circulating leukocytes. A number of different media and gaseous phases were utilized in order to establish the optimal conditions for the immune response in vitro. The induction of a secondary PFC response was consistently obtained with ‘memory’ spleen cells obtained from rabbits 3–6 months following intravenous immunization with SRBC but not with cells of any of the other lymphoid organs, and this response probably represents the activity of memory cells which reside in the rabbit spleen. A primary response was observed only with ‘normal’ spleen cells, and the medium which facilitated the response was different from that which facilitated the induction of the secondary response in vitro. It was also observed, using a medium in which normal spleen cells were incapable of generating PFCs, that mixed cultures of normal spleen and normal appendix or bone marrow cells could give a marked PFC response in vitro. Whether the PFC response to SRBCs obtained with the lymphoid cells of normal, unimmunized rabbits represents a true primary response, a secondary response, or a response of a different nature as a consequence of continuous subthreshold immunization of the rabbit with enteric microorganisms which cross-react with the antigen, remains to be determined. However, our initial successes with cultures consisting of cells of at least two distinct lymphoid organs in cases where the cells of any one of these organs could not respond, suggest that interaction of at least two functionally distinct cells is required and that the response observed in vitro is probably a primary immune response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".