MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pretectal connections in turtles with special reference to the visual thalamic centers: A hodological and ?-aminobutyric acid-immunohistochemical study

2000· article· en· W2040660299 on OpenAlexaff
Н. Б. Кенигфест, М. Г. Белехова, J. Rep�rant, J.P. Rio, N. P. Vesselkin, Roger Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPretectal areaBiologyNucleusNeuroscienceMidbrainAnatomyForebrainTegmentumOculomotor nucleusVisual systemTectumThalamusRetrograde tracingCentral nervous systemVisual cortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Projections of the pretectal region to forebrain and midbrain structures were examined in two species of turtles (Testudo horsfieldi and Emys orbicularis) by axonal tracing and immunocytochemical methods. Two ascending gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic pathways to thalamic visual centers were revealed: a weak projection from the retinorecipient nucleus lentiformis mesencephali to the ipsilateral nucleus geniculatus lateralis pars dorsalis and a considerably stronger projection from the nonretinorecipient nucleus pretectalis ventralis to the nucleus rotundus. The latter is primarily ipsilateral, with a weak contralateral component. The interstitial nucleus of the tectothalamic tract is also involved in reciprocal projections of the pretectum and nucleus rotundus. In addition, the pretectal nuclei project reciprocally to the optic tectum and possibly to the telencephalic isocortical homologues. Comparison of these findings with previous work on other species reveals striking similarities between the pretectorotundal pathway in turtles and birds and in the pretectogeniculate pathway in turtles, birds, and mammals.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207