MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011906238 · doi:10.1159/000113840

Evaluating Hypotheses for the Transfer of Stimulus Particles to Jacobson's Organ in Snakes

2008· review· en· W2011906238 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

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTongueAnatomySuctionStimulus (psychology)ChemistryMedicinePsychologyPathologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six hypotheses for transfer mechanisms to the sensory epithelium of Jacobson's organ are presented: diffusion, capillary action, ciliary currents, pinocytotic currents, direct tongue insertion, and suction. Of these, diffusion and capillary action are rejected on theoretical grounds, and ciliary and pinocytic currents are seen as playing, at best, a secondary role. Of the two remaining hypotheses, direct insertion of the tongue and suction, experimental evidence is summarized that leads to the rejection of the direct insertion hypothesis. The stimulus transfer mechanism is hypothesized to involve the generation of suction within the lumen of Jacobson's organ and its duct. It is proposed that this suction is produced by pressure from the tongue and/or the anterior lingual processes.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.189 · 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