Class I and class II ganglion cells of rabbit retina: Quantitative analysis of dendritic branching patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Class I and class II ganglion cells, distinguished from one another in a companion paper, were analyzed in regard to their dendritic branching patterns by determination of: 1) mean "branching density" (BD), 2) "radial branching frequency" (RBF), and 3) "branch length distributions" (BLDs; Famiglietti [ 1992a] J Comp Neurol 324:295-321). Branching density of class II cells exceeded that of class I cells by a factor of two, when compared at the same retinal location, but declined with increasing distance from the visual streak (dvs). A one-bin difference in RBF between class I and class II cells was not statistically significant. BLDs are scatter-plots of individual preterminal and terminal branch lengths versus the distances of their origins from the soma. The parameters mp and mt, the slopes of regression lines fitted to the preterminal and terminal BLDs, respectively, were determined; mp, but not mt, was relatively independent of dvs, and was used empirically to determine a boundary value, mp = +5.0, separating "radiate" from "tufted" dendritic branching. Similarity of class I (mp = +8.6 +/- 4.6) and class II (mp = +1.4 +/- 5.2) cells did not allow a statistically significant separation of the two classes, based upon branching pattern alone; however, mp together with mt easily separated class I cells (mt = -17.8 +/- 10.0) and particularly "tufted" class II cells (mt = -16 +/- 9.3) from "tufted" class III.1 ganglion cells (Famiglietti, 1992a), with their qualitatively different, more regular branching (mp = +2.1 +/- 0.85; mt = +0.65 +/- 4.9).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".