Gates and Oscillators II: Zeitgebers and the Network Model of the Brain Clock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circadian rhythms in physiology and behavior are regulated by the SCN. When assessed by expression of clock genes, at least 2 distinct functional cell types are discernible within the SCN: nonrhythmic, light-inducible, retinorecipient cells and rhythmic autonomous oscillator cells that are not directly retinorecipient. To predict the responses of the circadian system, the authors have proposed a model based on these biological properties. In this model, output of rhythmic oscillator cells regulates the activity of the gate cells. The gate cells provide a daily organizing signal that maintains phase coherence among the oscillator cells. In the absence of external stimuli, this arrangement yields a multicomponent system capable of producing a self-sustained consensus rhythm. This follow-up study considers how the system responds when the gate cells are activated by an external stimulus, simulating a response to an entraining (or phase-setting) signal. In this model, the authors find that the system can be entrained to periods within the circadian range, that the free-running system can be phase shifted by timed activation of the gate, and that the phase response curve for activation is similar to that observed when animals are exposed to a light pulse. Finally, exogenous triggering of the gate over a number of days can organize an arrhythmic system, simulating the light-dependent reappearance of rhythmicity in a population of disorganized, independent oscillators. The model demonstrates that a single mechanism (i.e., the output of gate cells) can account for not only free-running and entrained rhythmicity but also other circadian phenomena, including limits of entrainment, a PRC with both delay and advance zones, and the light-dependent reappearance of rhythmicity in an arrhythmic animal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".