MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145347346 · doi:10.2466/pms.2001.92.1.183

Geophysical Variables and Behavior: Xci. Ambulatory Behavior in Rats following Prenatal Exposures to Complex Magnetic Fields Designed to Interact with Genetic Expression

2001· article· en· W2145347346 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Persinger, Linda S. St-Pierre, Stanley A. Koren

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrenatal developmentAmbulatoryMagnetic fieldIntensity (physics)Prenatal exposureOpen fieldField (mathematics)PhysiologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyBiologyEndocrinologyInternal medicinePhysicsMedicineGeneticsMathematicsPregnancyOpticsOffspringGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 45 litters were exposed during their entire prenatal development to one of two complex patterns of magnetic fields whose strengths varied within one of four intensity ranges between 10 nT and 1,000 nT or to sham-field conditions. The litters exposed to the most complex pattern, composed of 50 200-msec. presentations of different pulses for 10 sec. every 50 sec., displayed more ambulation in an open field at 21 days of age than the litters that had been exposed continuously to a repetitive frequency-modulated field or to sham-field conditions. This treatment explained 25% of the variance in the numbers of squares traversed. The results suggest that complexity of the applied magnetic field during prenatal development may be more important than intensity for permanently affecting neuronal organization and 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207