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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RNA molecules play active roles in the cell and are important for numerous applications in biotechnology and medicine. The function of an RNA molecule stems from its structure. RNA structure determination is time consuming, challenging, and expensive using experimental methods. Thus, much research has been directed at RNA structure prediction through computational means. Many of these methods focus primarily on the secondary structure of the molecule, ignoring the possibility of pseudoknotted structures. However, pseudoknots are known to play functional roles in many RNA molecules or in their method of interaction with other molecules. Improving the accuracy and efficiency of computational methods that predict pseudoknots is an ongoing challenge for single RNA molecules, RNA-RNA interactions, and RNA-protein interactions. To improve the accuracy of prediction, many methods focus on specific applications while restricting the length and the class of the pseudoknotted structures they can identify. In recent years, computational methods for structure prediction have begun to catch up with the impressive developments seen in biotechnology. Here, we provide a non-comprehensive overview of available pseudoknot prediction methods and their best-use cases. © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it