Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we will review molecular, anatomical, physiological and pharmacological data in an attempt to better understand how excitatory and inhibitory neurons recruited by distinct afferent inputs to the cerebral cortex contribute to the coupled hemodynamic response, and how astrocytes can act as intermediaries to these neuronal populations. We aim at providing the pros and cons to the following statements that, depending on the nature of the afferent input to the neocortex, (i) different neuronal or astroglial messengers, likely acting in sequence, mediate the hemodynamic changes, (ii) some recruited neurons release messengers that directly alter blood vessel tone, (iii) others act by modulating neuronal and astroglial activity, and (iv) astrocytes act as intermediaries for both excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters. We will stress that a given afferent signal activates a precise neuronal circuitry that determines the mediators of the hemodynamic response as well as the level of interaction with surrounding astrocytes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".