MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129643339 · doi:10.1002/cne.20783

Anatomy of the Hesse photoreceptor cell axonal system in the central nervous system of amphioxus

2005· article· en· W2129643339 on OpenAlexaff
A. Castro, Manuela Becerra, Marı́a Jesús Manso, Nancy M. Sherwood, Ramón Anadón

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAnatomyCentral nervous systemNeuroscienceNervous systemCell bodies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study reports the organization of the Hesse cell axonal system in the central nervous system of the amphioxus, with the use of a polyclonal antiserum raised against lamprey gonadotropin-releasing hormone-I (GnRH-I). In the spinal cord, the rhabdomeric photoreceptor cells of the bicellular organs were well labeled with this antibody. These cells sent smooth, straight, lateral processes that bent and became beaded as they passed ventrally and crossed to the contralateral side of the cord. There, the processes of several cells aggregated to give rise to a longitudinal fiber bundle. Beaded collaterals of these processes were directed to ventral neuropil and did not appear to contact giant Rohde cell axons. The crossed projections of the Hesse photoreceptors are compared with those of vertebrate retinal ganglion cells. Other antisera raised against GnRH weakly labeled rhabdomeric photoreceptors located dorsally in the brain, the Joseph cells. The finding that GnRH antibodies label amphioxus photoreceptor cells and axons is not definitive proof that the photoreceptors contain GnRH. Regardless of whether the antibody recognizes amphioxus GnRH, which has not yet been identified by structure, the antibody has revealed the processes of the Hesse photoreceptor cells.

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)0.001
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 score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207