MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971341767 · doi:10.1002/dev.20625

The reorganized brain: How treatment strategies for stroke and amblyopia can inform our knowledge of plasticity throughout the lifespan

2012· review· en· W1971341767 on OpenAlexaff
Mark D. Vida, Larissa Vingilis‐Jaremko, Blake E. Butler, Laura C. Gibson, Sandra Monteiro

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurosciencePsychologyNeuroplasticityPlasticityStructural plasticityProcess (computing)Balance (ability)Developmental psychologyComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural plasticity plays a crucial role in human development. During development, neural networks are shaped by experience-dependent processes that selectively strengthen and prune connections so that those that remain match the environment and process it optimally. Over time, neural connections become more stable, forming widely distributed, interconnected networks involving balanced excitation and inhibition and structural stabilizers like myelin. It was long believed that the potential for organization or reorganization existed only during early development. However, the successful treatments for adults with stroke or amblyopia discussed in this issue suggest that the potential for significant reorganization persists well into adulthood. Thus, development can be thought of as the stabilization of connections to match the current environment but with considerable residual plasticity that can be revealed if there is a shift in the excitatory: inhibitory balance or the removal of the structural stabilizers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207