MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

I<scp>NFERENCE AND</scp>C<scp>OMPUTATION WITH</scp>P<scp>OPULATION</scp>C<scp>ODES</scp>

2003· review· en· W2127806105 on OpenAlex

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

VenueAnnual Review of Neuroscience · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)PopulationComputer scienceBiologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the vertebrate nervous system, sensory stimuli are typically encoded through the concerted activity of large populations of neurons. Classically, these patterns of activity have been treated as encoding the value of the stimulus (e.g., the orientation of a contour), and computation has been formalized in terms of function approximation. More recently, there have been several suggestions that neural computation is akin to a Bayesian inference process, with population activity patterns representing uncertainty about stimuli in the form of probability distributions (e.g., the probability density function over the orientation of a contour). This paper reviews both approaches, with a particular emphasis on the latter, which we see as a very promising framework for future modeling and experimental work.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.322
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