MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086690006 · doi:10.1037/a0021822

Effects of neonatal medial versus lateral temporal cortex injury: Theoretical comment on Malkova et al. (2010).

2010· letter· en· W2086690006 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Kolb

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioemotional selectivity theoryLesionPsychologyTemporal lobeAmygdalaNeuroscienceTemporal cortexDevelopmental psychologyCerebral cortexPrefrontal cortexEpilepsyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article by Malkova, Mishkin, Suomo, and Bachevalier (2010, this issue) adds an important piece to our understanding of the role of the medial versus lateral temporal regions in socioemotional behavior. In their paper, they evaluate the effect of infant and adult amygdala lesions and infant inferotemporal cortex lesions on the social interactions of monkeys in infancy and adulthood. The results show that medial temporal lesions performed in infants produce greater effects on socioaffective behavior than similar lesions in adulthood and that infant monkeys with inferotemporal lesions exhibit social deficits that are resolved by adulthood. These results are relevant to three significant issues: (1) the role of the medial temporal and lateral temporal cortex in the symptoms of the Kluver-Bucy syndrome; (2) the role of age at injury in behavioral change after cerebral injuries; and (3) the importance of lesion locus and behavioral measure for recovery from infant and adult cerebral injury.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0430.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207