Expression of calcium-binding proteins in cerebellar- and inferior olivary-projecting neurons in the nucleus lentiformis mesencephali of pigeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the avian brain, the optokinetic response is controlled by two retinal-recipient nuclei: the nucleus of the basal optic root (nBOR) of the accessory optic system and the pretectal nucleus lentiformis mesencephali (LM). Although considered sister nuclei because of their similar response properties and function, there are both similarities and differences with respect to efferent projections and neurochemistry. Both nBOR and LM project to the cerebellum (Cb) directly as mossy fibers but also indirectly via the inferior olive (IO). In a previous report, we showed that the cerebellar- and inferior olivary-projecting neurons in nBOR of pigeons differentially express the calcium-binding proteins calretinin (CR) and parvalbumin (PV). Both CR and PV are expressed in the somata of LM neurons, although the latter is not as prevalent, and whether expression of CR and PV reflects cerebellar and IO projections is not known. In this report, by combining retrograde neuronal tracing from the Cb and IO with fluorescent immunohistochemistry, we examined the expression of these calcium-binding proteins in the pigeon LM. Half (52%) of the cerebellar-projecting neurons were CR+ve, but only 15% were PV+ve. Almost all (>95%) these PV+ve cells also expressed CR. In contrast, few of the IO-projecting neurons expressed CR or PV (
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".