MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1898752002 · doi:10.1139/z06-106

Innervation of ascidian siphons and their responses to stimulation

2006· article· en· W1898752002 on OpenAlexaffvenue
G. O. Mackie, Paolo Burighel, Federico Caicci, Lucia Manni

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiphon (mollusc)StimulationBiologyAnatomyTentacle (botany)ElectrophysiologySphincterReflexAfferentSensory systemNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of sensory cells and nerves was studied in the siphons of Corella inflata Huntsman, 1912 and Corella willmeriana Herdman, 1898 by immunohistology and electron microscopy. Each siphon has about 8000 primary sensory neurons. A coronal organ of the compound type is present on the oral tentacles. Convergence in the afferent pathway is estimated at >10:1. A new category of cells associated with the velar sphincter muscle is described at the tentacle bases. Responses to stimulation were recorded using flow meters. Both siphons are sensitive to touch and near-field vibrations. Removal of the oral tentacles did not diminish vibration sensitivity. Gentle stimulation of the oral siphon evokes crossed responses in which the atrial siphon closes and the velar sphincter contracts. Stronger stimulation produces squirts with closure of both siphons and branchial ciliary arrest. Experiments with polystyrene beads show that the oral tentacles are sensitive to contact with inflowing particles. Beads of 500–600 μm diameter evoked rejection responses 88% of the time, 355–425 μm beads 61%, and beads <125 μm less than 8%. These responses, attributed to the coronal organ, were lost after amputation of the tentacles. Electrophysiology confirmed that crossed responses and squirting are centrally mediated reflexes, but local conduction pathways also exist and survive deganglionation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations56
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207