MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Topographic organization of inferior olive cells projecting to translational zones in the vestibulocerebellum of pigeons

2000· article· en· W1968238816 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan A. Crowder, Ian R. Winship, Douglas R. Wylie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsAnatomyBiologyAxoplasmic transportTranslation (biology)CerebellumNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the nodulus and ventral uvula of pigeons, there are four parasagittal zones containing Purkinje cells responsive to patterns of optic flow that results from self-translation along a particular axis in three-dimensional space. By using a three-axis system to describe the preferred direction of translational optic flow, where +X, +Y, and +Z represent rightward, upward, and forward self-motion, respectively, the four cell types are: +Y, -Y, -X-Z, and -X+Z (assuming recording from the left side of the head). The -X-Z zone is the most medial, followed in sequence by the -X+Z, -Y zone, and the +Y zones. In this study, we injected the retrograde tracer cholera toxin subunit B into each of the four translational zones to determine the origin of the climbing fiber inputs in the inferior olive. Retrograde labeling in the inferior olive was found in the ventrolateral margin of the medial column from injections into all four translational zones; however, there was a clear functional topography. Retrograde labeling from -Y zone injections was found most rostrally in the medial column, whereas retrogradely labeled cells from -X-Z zone injections were found most caudally in the medial column. Labeling from +Y and -X+Z zone injections were found between the labeling from -Y zones and -X-Z zones, with +Y labeling located slightly caudal to -X+Z labeling.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations39
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207