MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247913979 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28755-3_11

Homostability

2016· book-chapter· en· W4247913979 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Bioinformatics · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene duplicationRecombinationBiologyGenetic algorithmGeneGenomeGeneticsNatural selectionEvolutionary biologySelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Once a speciation process has initiated, other factors may replace (G+C)% as a barrier to reproduction (preventing intergenomic recombination between species). This leaves (G+C)% free to assume other roles, such as preventing intragenomic (e.g. intergenic) recombination within a species. Many organisms have “macroisochores,” defined as long segments of relatively uniform (G+C)% that are coinherited with specific sequences of bases. Isochores may facilitate gene duplication. Indeed, each gene has a “homostabilizing propensity” to maintain itself as a “microisochore” of relatively uniform (G+C)%. The protection, afforded by differences in (G+C)%, against inadvertent recombination, facilitates the duplication both of genes and of genomes (speciation). George Williams’ definition of a gene as a unit of recombination, rather than of function, is now seen to have a chemical basis. For organisms living in extreme environments (e.g. thermophiles), natural selection seems to influence values for (G+C)% less than for (A+G)%.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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