MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407194809 · doi:10.1016/j.chempr.2024.102399

A roadmap toward the synthesis of life

2025· article· en· W4407194809 on OpenAlexaff
Christine M. E. Kriebisch, Olga Bantysh, Lorena Baranda Pellejero, Andrea Belluati, Eva Bertosin, Kun Dai, Maria de Roy, Hailin Fu, Nicola Galvanetto, Julianne M. Gibbs, Samuel Santhosh Gomez, Gaetano Granatelli, Alessandra Griffo, Maria Guix, Cenk Onur Gürdap, Johannes Harth-Kitzerow, Ivar S. Haugerud, Gregor Häfner, Pranay Jaiswal, Sadaf Javed, Ashkan Karimi, Shuzo Kato, Brigitte A. K. Kriebisch, Sudarshana Laha, Pao-Wan Lee, Wojciech P. Lipiński, Thomas Matreux, Thomas C. T. Michaels, Erik Poppleton, Alexander Ruf, Annemiek D. Slootbeek, Iris B. A. Smokers, Héctor Soria‐Carrera, Alessandro Sorrenti, Michele Stasi, Alisdair Stevenson, Advait Thatte, Mai Khanh Tran, Merlijn H. I. van Haren, Hidde Derk Vuijk, Shelley F. J. Wickham, Pablo Zambrano, Katarzyna P. Adamala, Karen Alim, Ebbe Sloth Andersen, Claudia Bonfio, Dieter Braun, Erwin Frey, Ulrich Gerland, Wilhelm T. S. Huck, Frank Jülicher, Nadanai Laohakunakorn, L. Mahadavan, Sijbren Otto, James Sáenz, Petra Schwille, Kerstin Göpfrich, Christoph A. Weber, Job Boekhoven

Bibliographic record

VenueChem · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrigins and Evolution of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The synthesis of life from non-living matter has captivated and divided scientists for centuries. This bold goal aims at unraveling the fundamental principles of life and leveraging its unique features, such as its resilience, sustainability, and ability to evolve. Synthetic life represents more than an academic milestone—it has the potential to revolutionize biotechnology, medicine, and materials science. Although the fields of synthetic biology, systems chemistry, and biophysics have made great strides toward synthetic life, progress has been hindered by social, philosophical, and technical challenges, such as vague goals, misaligned interdisciplinary efforts, and incompletely addressing public and ethical concerns. Our perspective offers a roadmap toward the synthesis of life based on discussions during a 2-week workshop with scientists from around the globe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.015
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.006

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemSame topicOrigins and Evolution of LifeFrench-language works237,207