MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095998765 · doi:10.2307/1543506

Neuronal Form in the Central Nervous System of the Tadpole Larva of the Ascidian<i>Ciona intestinalis</i>

2001· article· en· W2095998765 on OpenAlexafffund
Taro Okada, S. Stanley MacIsaac, You Katsuyama, Yasushi Okamura, Ian A. Meinertzhagen

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Bulletin · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCiona intestinalisBiologySomaNeuriteTadpole (physics)TunicateAnatomyGanglionNervous systemVentral nerve cordCionaChordateMetamorphosisLarvaNeuroscienceVertebrate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dorsal tubular central nervous system (CNS) of the ascidian tadpole larva is a diagnostic feature by which the chordate affinities of this group, as a whole, are recognized. We have used two methods to identify larval neurons of Ciona intestinalis. The first is serial electron microscopy (EM), as part of a dedicated study of the visceral ganglion (1), and the second is the transient transfection of neural plate progeny with green fluorescent protein (GFP) (2), to visualize the soma and its neurites of individual neurons in whole-mounted larvae of C. intestinalis. Our observations reveal that ascidian larval neurons are simple inform, with a single axonal neurite arising from a soma that is either monopolar or has only very few, relatively simple neurites arising from it, as part of a presumed dendritic arbor. Somata in the visceral ganglion giving rise to axons descending in the caudal nerve cord are presumed to be those of motor neurons.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological BulletinSame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207