MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Collision Detection as a Model for Sensory-Motor Integration

2011· review· en· W2130182339 on OpenAlexaff
Haleh Fotowat, Fabrizio Gabbiani

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Neuroscience · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemNeuroscienceCollision avoidanceContext (archaeology)Computer scienceSensory processingPsychologyCollisionBiologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visually guided collision avoidance is critical for the survival of many animals. The execution of successful collision-avoidance behaviors requires accurate processing of approaching threats by the visual system and signaling of threat characteristics to motor circuits to execute appropriate motor programs in a timely manner. Consequently, visually guided collision avoidance offers an excellent model with which to study the neural mechanisms of sensory-motor integration in the context of a natural behavior. Neurons that selectively respond to approaching threats and brain areas processing them have been characterized across many species. In locusts in particular, the underlying sensory and motor processes have been analyzed in great detail: These animals possess an identified neuron, called the LGMD, that responds selectively to approaching threats and conveys that information through a second identified neuron, the DCMD, to motor centers, generating escape jumps. A combination of behavioral and in vivo electrophysiological experiments has unraveled many of the cellular and network mechanisms underlying this behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations166
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207