Comparative Brain Collections Are an Indispensable Resource for Evolutionary Neurobiology
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The underuse of these brain collections by neuroanatomists brought me to question why the collections are so often ignored or overlooked. At a practical level, many people are unaware that these collections exist, which is why the curators of these collections need to be more proactive. Researchers interested in broad comparative analyses also need to be encouraged to explore what is available in natural history museums and other specimen collections. Some museums, such as the National Museum of Natural History (Washington), have large numbers of brain specimens that could be used for neuroanatomical research. A second possible reason for the poor usage of brain collections is a concern raised by some authors regarding the compilation of neuroanatomical, specifically volumetric, data from a variety of sources. Roth et al. [2010] and Healy and Rowe [2007] have both criticized the use of data from disparate sources. The main reason underlying their criticism is simple: different methods result in different degrees of tissue shrinkage and thereby skewed volumetric measurements. This criticism is fair, but is it reasonable enough to exclude specimens under all circumstances? Should every researcher be expected to generate their own comparative brain colEarlier this year, Dr. John I. Johnson organized a conference in Washington, D.C., USA, as a tribute to the life and works of Wally Welker, a prominent member of the evolutionary neurobiology field [Johnson, 1993]. As part of this tribute, several people contributed talks focused on neuroanatomical collections throughout the world, including the Welker collection currently housed at the National Museum of Health and Medicine (Washington). A wide range of collections was discussed, some of which are well known (e.g. Heinz Stephan’s bat, insectivore and primate brain collection and Welker’s Wisconsin collection) and others not known at all to most scientists. What became clearly apparent to the conference attendees was that there are many brain collections worldwide and most of them are infrequently used. A potential consequence of this infrequent use is that the collections could be misplaced, destroyed or otherwise lost. Several people have since developed a committee (see http://braindatabases. wikispaces.com/) aimed at documenting these collections, increasing awareness of these collections within the scientific community and eventually digitizing these collections to make them more readily available for research and educational purposes. Published online: September 29, 2010
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle