MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Synthetic biology tools for environmental protection

2023· review· en· W4386071224 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

VenueBiotechnology Advances · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Metabolic Engineering and Bioproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNovo Nordisk FondenNovo Nordisk
KeywordsSynthetic biologyBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental remediationBiotechnologyComputer scienceBiologyEcologyComputational biologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthetic biology transforms the way we perceive biological systems. Emerging technologies in this field affect many disciplines of science and engineering. Traditionally, synthetic biology approaches were commonly aimed at developing cost-effective microbial cell factories to produce chemicals from renewable sources. Based on this, the immediate beneficial impact of synthetic biology on the environment came from reducing our oil dependency. However, synthetic biology is starting to play a more direct role in environmental protection. Toxic chemicals released by industries and agriculture endanger the environment, disrupting ecosystem balance and biodiversity loss. This review highlights synthetic biology approaches that can help environmental protection by providing remediation systems capable of sensing and responding to specific pollutants. Remediation strategies based on genetically engineered microbes and plants are discussed. Further, an overview of computational approaches that facilitate the design and application of synthetic biology tools in environmental protection is presented.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.267 · 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