MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062359299 · doi:10.1159/000057575

Quantitative Analysis of the Retinal Ganglion Cell Layer in the Ostrich, <i>Struthio camelus</i>

2001· article· en· W2062359299 on OpenAlexaff
Denis Boire, Jean-Sébastien Dufour, Hugo Théoret, Maurice Ptito

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinaRetinalAnatomyBiologyGanglionGanglion cell layerRetinal ganglion cellStreakOphthalmologyOpticsPhysicsMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The total number, distribution and peak density of ganglion cells were evaluated in the Nissl-stained retina of the ostrich (Struthio camelus). The mean (n = 4) total number of retinal ganglion cells (RGC) was estimated at 2,274,128 (s.d. = 273, 152). The ostrich retina exhibited a prominent horizontal visual streak along which a central area located nasal to the pecten had a peak density of 9,500 cells/mm2. A high concentration of cells with a peak density of 2,646 cells/mm2 was also observed in the temporal retina, slightly dorsal to the visual streak. The results further showed that the ostrich eye has a 15-mm pupil entrance diameter, its mean axial length is 39.81 mm, the estimated retinal magnification factor is 0.4075 mm/deg and the maximum visual acuity along the well-defined visual streak was estimated to be 19.32 cycles/deg. The latter component of the retina might subserve vision along the horizon while the temporal region mediates binocular processing. The data also showed that the degree of retinal illumination in this bird could be comparable to that noted in some nocturnal species. The findings in this study suggest that the ostrich might not be restricted to diurnal activity.

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)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations50
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain Behavior and EvolutionSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207