MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116318424 · doi:10.1093/icb/44.1.4

Crustacean Phasic and Tonic Motor Neurons

2004· article· en· W2116318424 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew G. Millar

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsTonic (physiology)NeuroscienceNeurotransmitterSynaptic vesicleBiologyActive zoneSynapseCentral nervous systemVesicle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crustacean motor neurons subserving locomotion are specialized for the type of activity in which they normally participate. Neurons responsible for maintained activity ('tonic' neurons) support moderate to high frequencies of nerve impulses intermittently or continuously during locomotion, while those recruited for short-lasting rapid responses ('phasic' neurons) generally fire a few impulses in a rapid burst during rapid locomotion and are otherwise silent. The synaptic responses of the two types, recorded at their respective neuromuscular junctions, differ enormously: phasic neurons exhibit much higher quantal release per synapse and per muscle fibre, along with more rapid synaptic depression and less short-term facilitation. We have analyzed the factors that are responsible for the large difference in initial release of neurotransmitter. Several possibilities, including synapse and active zone size differences, entry of calcium at active zones, and immediately releasable vesicle pools, could not account for the large phasic-tonic difference in initial transmitter output. The most likely feature that differentiates synaptic release is the sensitivity of the exocytotic machinery to intracellular calcium. Molecular features of the phasic and tonic presynaptic nerve terminals are currently under investigation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207