MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126634509 · doi:10.1002/dev.21022

Amblyopia: Background to the special issue on stroke recovery

2012· review· en· W2126634509 on OpenAlex
Daphne Maurer, Takao K. Hensch

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurochemicalStroke (engine)PsychologyNeuroscienceAnimal modelVisual acuityMedicineOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this introductory article, we summarize the evidence from humans and animal models on the shaping of postnatal visual development by focused binocular input. When balanced input is missing during a sensitive period, deficits emerge, including seemingly permanent impairments in visual acuity that are labeled amblyopia. Rodent models have identified neurochemical changes that control the onset of such sensitive periods and molecular and structural brakes that lead to the diminution of the plasticity thereafter. Both animal and human studies of amblyopia have recently identified exciting ways to remediate vision in adulthood that bear some similarity to the interventions that have proved successful in promoting recovery from stroke.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.037

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.140 · 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