Review Beginnings of microbiology and biochemistry: the contribution of yeast research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With improvements in microscopes early in the nineteenth century, yeasts were seen to be living organisms, although some famous scientists ridiculed the idea and their influence held back the development of microbiology. In the 1850s and 1860s, yeasts were established as microbes and responsible for alcoholic fermentation, and this led to the study of the rôle of bacteria in lactic and other fermentations, as well as bacterial pathogenicity. At this time, there were difficulties in distinguishing between the activities of microbes and of extracellular enzymes. Between 1884 and 1894, Emil Fischer’s study of sugar utilization by yeasts generated an understanding of enzymic specificity and the nature of enzyme–substrate complexes. Overview Early in the nineteenth century, even the existence of living microbes was a matter of debate. This article describes how biologists, studying yeasts as the cause of fermentation, came to recognize the reality of micro-organisms and began to characterize them. However, it was not until the last quarter of the nineteenth century that people knew with any
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
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".