Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Calpain Methods and Protocols, John S. Elce and a seasoned team of principal investigators present a set of proven and easily followed protocols for studying calpain. The methods include in vitro techniques for the detection, expression, purification, and assay of µ- and m-calpain, supplemented with a wide range of system and tissue models for studying both the physiological functions and the effects of inhibitors on calpain. The systems used include neural tissue, kidney, liver, the eye, and membrane fusion in muscle and erythrocytes, each in connection with hypoxia or other injury. Among the analytical techniques employed are casein zymography, immunofluorescence, and calpain activity assays. The authors also examine specific substrates that have been proposed for the calpains. Highly practical and readily repeatable, Calpain Methods and Protocols offers investigators involved in basic and clinically oriented calpain research a gold-standard collection of powerful experimental tools for discovering the nature and function of calpains
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.093 |
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".