MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hippocampal neurogenesis in food‐storing red squirrels: the impact of age and spatial behavior

2010· article· en· W2096431750 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathia M. Johnson, Rudy Boonstra, J. Martin Wojtowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Brain & Behavior · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArctic Institute of North America
KeywordsNeurogenesisHippocampal formationHippocampusBiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adaptive significance of adult hippocampal neurogenesis remains unknown. In the laboratory, it is influenced by a variety of environmental and physiological stimuli. In the wild, it may be influenced by the reliance on spatial memory and by environmental stressors. The one common denominator in both settings is that neurogenesis declines markedly with age. Red squirrels are long-lived rodents that store food (thousands of tree cones) to permit survival under harsh winter conditions. We compared a population from the eastern North America that stores its cones singly or in small clusters with one from the west that stores its cones in large stockpiles. The reliance on spatial memory should be much greater in the east than the west, and should not decline with age, as cone storage and recovery is a yearly necessity. We found no difference between the populations in the density of young neurons and both populations showed the same decline with age. Thus, we reject the spatial memory hypothesis for adult neurogenesis in mammals in its original form. Instead, our evidence is consistent with the neurogenic reserve hypothesis in which neuronal cell production early in life leads to enhanced hippocampal function later in life according to environmental demand but without requirement for ongoing cell production as a function of site- and species-specific needs. A more general interpretation of the data leads us to consider a possible role of neurogenesis in novel, flexible episodic memories.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Brain & BehaviorSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207