MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088931985 · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-8-s2-p41

Enhanced measured synchronization of unsynchronized sources: significance for brain recordings

2007· article· en· W2088931985 on OpenAlexaff
Luís Garcia Dominguez, Richard Wennberg, José Luis Pérez Velázquez, Ramón Guevara

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetoencephalographySynchronization (alternating current)ElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceComputer scienceBrain activity and meditationPhase synchronizationPremovement neuronal activityArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analysis of synchronization, particularly phase locking, is being increasingly used in neuroscience to explore coordinated brain activity. The application of this methodology to magnetoencephalographic (MEG) and electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings would seem promising because these two recording techniques have great temporal resolution. However, current methods of synchronization analysis applied to raw MEG/EEG data may not be as physiologically sound as previously thought. In this work we present a model of brain activity based on random current dipoles that reproduces the main characteristics observed in measurements of real data synchronization, even when no synchronized activity is taking place among the sources. In particular, we show that the enhanced local synchronization, previously described in some studies of epileptic seizures, may result from the activity of only a few unsynchronized sources.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207