MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996395471 · doi:10.1126/science.1227489

Orbitofrontal Cortex Supports Behavior and Learning Using Inferred But Not Cached Values

2012· article· en· W1996395471 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua L. Jones, Guillem R. Esber, Michael A. McDannald, Aaron J. Gruber, Alex Hernández, Aaron Mirenzi, Geoffrey Schoenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsOrbitofrontal cortexValue (mathematics)CacheCortex (anatomy)Computer scienceBasis (linear algebra)Associative learningCognitive psychologyAssociative propertyPsychologyNeuroscienceMathematicsCognitionPrefrontal cortexMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational and learning theory models propose that behavioral control reflects value that is both cached (computed and stored during previous experience) and inferred (estimated on the fly on the basis of knowledge of the causal structure of the environment). The latter is thought to depend on the orbitofrontal cortex. Yet some accounts propose that the orbitofrontal cortex contributes to behavior by signaling "economic" value, regardless of the associative basis of the information. We found that the orbitofrontal cortex is critical for both value-based behavior and learning when value must be inferred but not when a cached value is sufficient. The orbitofrontal cortex is thus fundamental for accessing model-based representations of the environment to compute value rather than for signaling value per se.

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)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations349
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207