MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302365720 · doi:10.26443/msurj.v1i1.153

The Difficulty In Computing Ancestral DNA Sequences: Using Computational Analysis To Reconstruct DNA Sequences

2006· article· en· W4302365720 on OpenAlexaff
Zhentao Li, Mathieu Blanchette

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Science Undergraduate Research Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeTree of life (biology)Sequence (biology)Evolutionary biologyDECIPHERDNA sequencingBiologyTree (set theory)Order (exchange)Multiple sequence alignmentAncient DNAIdentity (music)Computer scienceDNAComputational biologySequence alignmentGeneticsMathematicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intriguing work has been carried out in order to decipher the genetic codes of today’s existing species. However, little is known about the genetic makeup of species that existed long ago. Exciting possibilities have recently been raised in the field of computational analysis (1), proposing that reconstruction of ancestral DNA sequences can be performed if the DNA sequences of the existing species are known. Being able to perform such reconstructions would simplify the study of the evolution of these species, and uncover many mysteries regarding life that once existed on this planet.
 In order to perform reconstructions of unknown ancestral DNA sequences, many different types of problems must be solved, all of which can be approached computationally. Examples of such problems include building a phylogenetic tree of the evolutionary line in question, determining a multiple alignment of the existing species being analyzed, or working out the actual identity of the nucleotides within the ancestral sequence. The problem presented in this paper considers the level of modification within the ancestral sequence.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Science Undergraduate Research JournalSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207