The language of visual representations in the neurosciences — relating past and future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In theoretical accounts of the neurosciences, investigative research programs have often been separated into the morphological and physiological tradition. The morphological tradition is seen as describing the structure and form of the external and interior parts of the brain and spinal cord. The physiological tradition is interpreted as a compilation of those approaches which investigate cerebral functions particularly in their dynamic interactions. It must be regarded as an open question, though, whether the distinction between the morphological and physiological tradition in modern clinical and basic neuroscience has now become obsolete with the most recent neuroimaging techniques, such as fMRI, PET scans, SPECT, etc. Taken at face value, these new imaging techniques seem to relate, overlap, and even identify the anatomical with the functional substrate, when mapping individual patterns of neural activity across the visually delineated morphological structures. The particular focus of this review article is primarily on the morphological tradition, beginning with German neuroanatomist Samuel Thomas Soemmerring and leading to recent approaches in the neurohistological work of neuroscience centres in the United States and morphophysiological neuroimaging techniques in Canada. Following some landmark research steps in neuroanatomy detailed in the first section, this article analyzes the changing trajectories to an integrative theory of the brain in its second section. An examination of the relationship between form and function within the material culture of neuroscience in the third and final part, will further reveal an astonishingly heterogeneous investigative and conceptual terrain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".