Depicting a cellular space occupied by condensates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Condensates have emerged as a new way to understand how cells are organized, and have been invoked to play crucial roles in essentially all cellular processes. In this view, the cell is occupied by numerous assemblies, each composed of member proteins and nucleic acids that preferentially interact with each other. However, available visual representations of condensates fail to communicate the growing body of knowledge about how condensates form and function. The resulting focus on only a subset of the potential implications of condensates can skew interpretations of results and hinder the generation of new hypotheses. Here we summarize the discussion from a workshop that brought together cell biologists, visualization and computation specialists, and other experts who specialize in thinking about space and ways to represent it. We place the recent advances in condensate research in a historical perspective that describes evolving views of the cell; highlight different attributes of condensates that are not well-served by current visual conventions; and survey potential approaches to overcome these challenges. An important theme of these discussions is that the new understanding on the roles of condensates exposes broader challenges in visual representations that apply to cell biological research more generally.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".