MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neural mechanisms involved in odor pleasantness and intensity judgments

2000· article· en· W2050830642 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

VenueNeuroreport · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSniffingOrbitofrontal cortexPiriform cortexOdorPsychologyOlfactionNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)Brain activity and meditationOlfactory systemAudiologyCentral nervous systemCognitionPrefrontal cortexCognitive psychologyElectroencephalographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Olfactory processing in the human brain was examined using positron emission tomography. Twelve normal volunteers were scanned while smelling pairs of odors: they were asked to judge which odor was more pleasant in one condition, and which was more intense in a second condition; they also were scanned while sniffing an odorless stimulus. As in prior studies, greater cerebral blood flow was found in the right orbitofrontal cortex during both pleasantness and intensity judgments as compared to baseline. Cerebellar activity was also seen, but contrary to expectations no activity was detected in the primary olfactory (piriform) cortex. Only the pleasantness judgment elicited additional activity within the hypothalamus, suggesting that this structure may be involved in affective processing that requires access to information about internal state.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.121 · 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