Synapse distribution of olfactory interneurons in the procerebrum of the snailHelix aspersa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The procerebrum is believed to be important for processing olfactory information and storing olfactory memories in terrestrial pulmonate molluscs. Previous results have demonstrated that the procerebral cell population is morphologically heterogeneous. In the present study, serial sections and electron microscopy were used to investigate differences in synapse distributions. The results demonstrate that procerebral neurons with different sites of arborization have distinct patterns of synapse distribution that probably reflect different functional contributions to the olfactory pathway. Cells that have all their arborizations in the procerebrum, but none in the internal mass, have multiple large varicosities that are specialized for output. On the other hand, cells that arborize in the internal mass or outside the procerebrum have mostly input synapses proximal to the soma and mostly output synapses in the terminal region of the neurites. These cells appear to transmit information from the procerebral cell body mass to other central nervous system regions, e.g., the internal mass and the mesocerebrum. The implications of these data are twofold. Firstly, the procerebrum directly participates in distributing processed olfactory information to more central regions of the nervous system. Secondly, the procerebral neuronal population may be divisible into two subgroups: 1) intrinsically arborizing interneurons; and 2) projection neurons. This is significant because the neural organization of the procerebrum may now be compared with that of olfactory systems in other organisms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".