Confidential thesis defended on 06/08/2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les industries cosmétiques ont récemment concentré leurs études sur l’impact de l’environnement sur le microbiote cutané. Le microbiote cutané peut être considéré comme une seconde barrière face aux stress environnementaux et constituerait la première ligne de défense notamment contre les irradiations UVs. Certains effets sur l’écosystème cutané peuvent être positifs, mais la plupart sont négatifs. Une photoprotection est alors nécessaire. L’objectif de cette thèse a été de comprendre les mécanismes mis en place suite à deux types d’exposition UVA et UVB sur des souches représentatives du microbiote cutané: Staphylococcus aureus MFP03, Staphylococcus epidermidis MFP04, Pseudomonas fluorescens MFP05, Micrococcus luteus MFP06 et Cutibacterium acnes RT6. Selon l’espèce bactérienne, des réponses physiologiques et protéiques différentes ont été observées. Des cibles protéiques sur- produites lors de ces expositions ont pu être identifiées et proposées pour de futures études afin d’en évaluer leur activité photoprotectrice.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.803 | 0.680 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".