As You Like It, Part 3: A Critique and Historical Review of Calcification as Seen with the Electron Microscope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As You Like It, Part 3, is a continuation of the lectures given by the author (Ultra Path VIII and Ultra Path IX). It is a critical historical review of topics of interest to electron microscopists, attempting to show what went wrong and perhaps also why. The topics chosen this time demonstrate the prominent role electron microscopy has played in elucidating the diverse ways in which calcification can occur. The classic concept of dystropic and metastatic calcification is now inadequate to explain all observed phenomena. The electron microscope shows that calcification occurs in many different intracellular and extracellular sites and that each has its own morphology and etiology. Thus, a new classification based on ultrastructural morphology is born, but few seemto be awareof it. The author examines the ubiquitous but not too well-known phenomenon of cell remodeling, which often, but not always,leads to calcification. Topics are presented under the following headings: (1) matrical lipidic debris, (2) spherical microparticles, (3) matrix vesicles, (4) intramitochondrial calcification, (5) intralysosomal calcification, (6) calcification of collagen, (7) calcification of elastic fibers, and (8) calcification of secretory products.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".