MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992712720 · doi:10.1073/pnas.072092299

Differential activation of the human orbital, mid-ventrolateral, and mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during the processing of visual stimuli

2002· article· en· W1992712720 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexDorsolateral prefrontal cortexNeuroscienceConsumer neuroscienceVentrolateral prefrontal cortexSelf-reference effectOrbitofrontal cortexWorking memoryPsychologyInterference theoryPosterior parietal cortexCognitive psychologyStimulus (psychology)Cognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is considerable uncertainty about the precise functional contribution of the different parts of the prefrontal cortex to mnemonic processing. Changes in regional cerebral blood flow were measured with positron emission tomography in normal human subjects exposed to abstract visual designs under various conditions. It was demonstrated that the processing of stimuli that deviate from expectations involves selectively the orbitofrontal cortex, namely the part of the frontal cortex that is preferentially linked with the limbic system. By contrast, when the subject is making an explicit decision on the contents of memory (e.g., judgments of relative stimulus familiarity), the mid-ventrolateral prefrontal cortex is involved. The mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is engaged when monitoring of information within working memory is required.

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.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.245 · 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