MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2079008191 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100004911

Canadian Association of Neurosciences Review: Postnatal Development of the Mammalian Neocortex: Role of Activity Revisited

2006· review· en· W2079008191 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Zhongwei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeocortexAssociation (psychology)NeurosciencePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mammalian neocortex is the largest structure in the brain, and plays a key role in brain function. A critical period for the development of the neocortex is the early postnatal life, when the majority of synapses are formed and when much of synaptic remodeling takes place. Early studies suggest that initial synaptic connections lack precision, and this rudimentary wiring pattern is refined by experience-related activity through selective elimination and consolidation. This view has been challenged by recent studies revealing the presence of a relatively precise pattern of connections before the onset of sensory experience. The recent data support a model in which specificity of neuronal connections is largely determined by genetic factors. Spontaneous activity is required for the formation of neural circuits, but whether it plays an instructive role is still controversial. Neurotransmitters including acetylcholine, serotonin, and gamma-Aminobutyric acid (GABA) may have key roles in the regulation of spontaneous activity, and in the maturation of synapses in the developing brain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.013

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→French-language works237,207→