MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966212920 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00619

What we talk about when we talk about the default mode network

2014· article· en· W1966212920 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Felicity Callard, Daniel S. Margulies

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersItalian Academy for Advanced Studies in America, Columbia UniversityDurham UniversityYork UniversityWellcome Trust
KeywordsDefault mode networkMode (computer interface)DefaultComputer sciencePsychologyBusinessNeuroscienceFinanceHuman–computer interactionFunctional connectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The default mode network (DMN) has been widely defined as a set of brain regions that are engaged when people are in a "resting state" (left to themselves in a scanner, with no explicit task instruction). The network emerged as a scientific object in the early twenty-first century, and in just over a decade has become the focus of intense empirical and conceptual neuroscientific inquiry. In this Perspective, we contribute to the work of critical neuroscience by providing brief reflections on the birth, working life, and future of the DMN. We consider: how the DMN emerged through the convergence of distinct lines of scientific investigation; controversies surrounding the definition, function and localization of the DMN; and the lines of interdisciplinary investigation that the DMN has helped to enable. We conclude by arguing that one of the most pressing issues in the field in 2014 is to understand how the mechanisms of thought are related to the function of brain dynamics. While the DMN has been central in allowing the field to reach this point, it is not inevitable that the DMN itself will remain at the heart of future investigations of this complex problem.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.025
Scholarly communication0.0090.025
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations61
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207