MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neural mechanisms involved in odor pleasantness and intensity judgments

2000· article· en· W2050830642 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Zatorre, Marilyn Jones‐Gotman, Catherine Rouby

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.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.149
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

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 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

Citations151
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207