MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6901771433 · doi:10.60692/39b1w-ryq43

Guidelines and recommendations on yeast cell death nomenclature

2018· article· en· W6901771433 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYeastSet (abstract data type)Programmed cell deathSystems biologyNomenclatureModel organism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elucidating the biology of yeast in its full complexity has major implications for science, medicine and industry. One of the most critical processes determining yeast life and physiology is cel-lular demise. However, the investigation of yeast cell death is a relatively young field, and a widely accepted set of concepts and terms is still missing. Here, we propose unified criteria for the defi-nition of accidental, regulated, and programmed forms of cell death in yeast based on a series of morphological and biochemical criteria. Specifically, we provide consensus guidelines on the differ-ential definition of terms including apoptosis, regulated necrosis, and autophagic cell death, as we refer to additional cell death rou-tines that are relevant for the biology of (at least some species of) yeast. As this area of investigation advances rapidly, changes and extensions to this set of recommendations will be implemented in the years to come. Nonetheless, we strongly encourage the au-thors, reviewers and editors of scientific articles to adopt these collective standards in order to establish an accurate framework for yeast cell death research and, ultimately, to accelerate the pro-gress of this vibrant field of research.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0170.018
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0170.007
Research integrity0.0150.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.040

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicFungal and yeast genetics research→French-language works237,207→