MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391613735 · doi:10.1002/cpz1.974

Methods for the Design and Analysis of Analytical Ultracentrifugation Experiments

2024· article· en· W4391613735 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein purification and stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of LethbridgeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAnalytical UltracentrifugationUltracentrifugeSedimentationChromatographyComputer scienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analytical ultracentrifugation experiments play an integral role in the solution-phase characterization of biological macromolecules and their interactions. This unit discusses the design of sedimentation velocity and sedimentation equilibrium experiments performed with a Beckman Proteomelab XL-A or XL-I analytical ultracentrifuge and with a Beckman Optima AUC. Instrument settings and experimental design considerations are explained, and strategies for the analysis of experimental data with the UltraScan data analysis software package are presented. Special attention is paid to the strengths and weaknesses of the available detectors, and guidance is provided on how to extract maximum information from analytical ultracentrifugation experiments. © 2024 The Authors. Current Protocols published by 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.377 · 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