MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Changes in Task Demands Alter the Pattern of z<i>if268</i>Expression in the Dentate Gyrus

2011· article· en· W1970847345 on OpenAlexaff
Elham Satvat, Brandy Schmidt, Melissa Argraves, Diano F. Marrone, Etan J. Markus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentate gyrusGranule cellNeurosciencePopulationPsychologyHippocampusMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Granule cells of the dentate gyrus (DG) are thought to disambiguate similar experiences--a process termed pattern separation. Using zif268 as a marker of cellular activity, DG function was assessed in rats performing two tasks: a place task (go east) and a response task (turn right). As these tasks occurred within the same physical space (a plus maze) without any physical cue to indicate the correct strategy in a given trial, this scenario critically involves disambiguation of task demands and presumably pattern separation. Performance of the two tasks induced zif268 expression in distinct populations of granule cells within the suprapyramidal but not the infrapyramidal blade of the DG. Repeated performance of the same task (i.e., two response-task trials or two place-task trials), however, elicited zif268 expression within a single subset of the granule cell population. This differential transcription pattern shows that the retrieval of different behavioral strategies or mnemonic demands recruit distinct ensembles of granule cells, possibly to prevent interference between memories of events occurring within the same physical space to permit the selection of appropriate responses.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 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

Citations59
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience→Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→