MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100707968 · doi:10.1002/jemt.20050

The physiology of insect auditory afferents

2004· review· en· W2100707968 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew C. Mason, Paul A. Faure

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy Research and Technique · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceBiologyAfferentInsectAuditory systemReceptorPopulationNeural codingMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review presents an overview of the physiology of primary receptors serving tympanal hearing in insects. Auditory receptor responses vary with frequency, intensity, and temporal characteristics of sound stimuli. Various insect species exploit each of these parameters to differing degrees in the neural coding of auditory information, depending on the nature of the relevant stimuli. Frequency analysis depends on selective tuning in individual auditory receptors. In those insect groups that have individually tuned receptors, differences in physiology are correlated with structural differences among receptors and with the anatomical arrangement of receptors within the ear. Intensity coding is through the rate-level characteristics of tonically active auditory receptors and through variation in the absolute sensitivities of individual receptors (range fractionation). Temporal features of acoustic stimuli may be copied directly in the timing of afferent responses. Salient signal characteristics may also be represented by variation in the timing of afferent responses on a finer temporal scale, or by the synchrony of responses across a population of receptors.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy Research and TechniqueSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207