MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963938197 · doi:10.1159/000047261

A Quantitative Ultrastructural Study of the Optic Nerve of the Chameleon

2001· article· en· W1963938197 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Bennis, Meriem El Hassni, Jean‐Paul Rio, Denis Lecren, J Repérant, Roger Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptic nerveAnatomyOptic chiasmaAxonRetinaUltrastructureRetinalElectron microscopeChiasmaRetinal ganglion cellGanglionChemistryBiologyNeurosciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optic nerve of adult chameleons was investigated with an electron microscope. The total number of retinal ganglion cell axons, the proportion of myelinated axons, the frequency distributions of myelinated and unmyelinated axon diameters were estimated, together with the volume occupied by glial processes. These were distinguished from unmyelinated axons using an antibody directed against glial fibrillary acidic protein, in a post-embedding procedure. The total number of fibers was estimated to be 405,235 +/- 60,000 axons. The proportion of myelinated fibers varied with position between the eyeball and the chiasma; being 22-27% close to the eyeball, rising to 42-47% halfway along the optic nerve and to 56-62% close to the chiasma. Myelinated and unmyelinated fiber diameter distributions were unimodal and positively skewed, with modes of 0.7 microm and 0.2 microm, respectively. There was a significant regional variation in the size of optic nerve axons. Large myelinated axons were observed in the dorsal and ventral periphery, whereas smaller myelinated fibers and a high proportion of unmyelinated fibers were found in the center of the nerve.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain Behavior and EvolutionSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207