The environment and the internal clocks: The study of their relationships from prehistoric to modern times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin of biological rhythms goes back to the very beginning of life. They are observed in the animal and plant world at all levels of organization, from cells to ecosystems. As early as the 18th century, plant scientists were the first to explain the relationship between flowering cycles and environmental cycles, emphasizing the importance of daily light-dark cycles and the seasons. Our temporal structure is controlled by external and internal rhythmic signals. Light is the main synchronizer of the circadian system, as daily exposure to light entrains our clock over 24 hours, the endogenous period of the circadian system being close to, but not exactly, 24 hours. In 1960, a seminal scientific meeting, the Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Biological Rhythms, brought together all the biological rhythms scientists of the time, a number of whom are considered the founders of modern chronobiology. All aspects of biological rhythms were addressed, from the properties of circadian rhythms to their practical and ecological aspects. Birth of chronobiology dates from this period, with the definition of its vocabulary and specificities in metabolism, photoperiodism, animal physiology, etc. At around the same time, and right up to the present day, research has focused on melatonin, the circadian neurohormone of the pineal gland, with data on its pattern, metabolism, control by light and clinical applications. However, light has a double face, as it has positive effects as a circadian clock entraining agent, but also deleterious effects, as it can lead to chronodisruption when exposed chronically at night, which can increase the risk of cancer and other diseases. Finally, research over the past few decades has unraveled the anatomical location of circadian clocks and their cellular and molecular mechanisms. This recent research has in turn allowed us to explain how circadian rhythms control physiology and health.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".