University of Minnesota Medical Bulletin, January 15, 1960
Bibliographic record
Abstract
JIuman chromosomes were first described by Arnold in 1879.No estimate of the number or type of chromosomes was possible from his preparations.! Flemming (1898), the foremost cytologist of his time, in a discussion of human chromosomes, concluded that 24 was the correct number. 2This report was followed by several different estimates of the number and types of human chromosomes with no agreement reached until the 1920's.Painter (1921) reported the presence of the small Y chromosome in males and stated that the counts ranged from 45 to 48, although his clearest equatorial plates indicated that 46 chromosomes were present.In 1923, he came to the conclusion from studies of testicular biopsies of three insane individuals that the correct number R. C. Goodlin, M.D. was 48. 3 In 1937, Koller proved the existence of the XY and XX sex chromosome conditions in the human, and following his work, the number 48 was generally accepted. 4 The number was not challenged until 1956, when Tjio and Levan reported the results of cultures of lung fibroblasts of four therapeutically aborted human embryos.In 261 cells, there were clearly only 46 chromosomes. 5 This observation was immediately confirmed by Ford and Hamerton who counted 23 bivalents regularly at 'the first spermatocyte metaphase. 6 Why this 25-year delay in determining the correct human karyotype?(Karyotype includes not only the number but also
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".