Bibliographic record
Abstract
The whole field of synthetic biology (SynBio) is only about 20 years old, and plant SynBio is younger still. Nevertheless, within that short time, SynBio in general has drawn more scientific, philosophical, government, and private-sector interest than anything in biology since the recombinant DNA revolution. Plant SynBio, in particular, is now drawing more and more interest in relation to plants' potential to help solve planetary problems such as carbon capture and storage and replacing fossil fuels and feedstocks. As plant SynBio is so young and so fast-developing, we felt it was too soon to try to analyze its history. Instead, we set out to capture the essence of plant SynBio's origins and early development through interviews with 8 of the field's founders, representing 5 countries and 3 continents. We then distilled these founders' personal recollections and reflections into this review, centering the narrative on timelines for pivotal events, articles, funding programs, and quoting from interviews. We have archived the interview recordings and documented timeline entries. This work provides a resource for future historical scholarship.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".