MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154137473 · doi:10.3389/neuro.11.009.2008

Python for large-scale electrophysiology

2008· article· en· W2154137473 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin A. Spacek

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroinformatics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPython (programming language)Computer scienceSpike sortingElectrophysiologySoftwareVisual cortexStimulus (psychology)VisualizationNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageBiologyPsychologySorting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrophysiology is increasingly moving towards highly parallel recording techniques which generate large data sets. We record extracellularly in vivo in cat and rat visual cortex with 54-channel silicon polytrodes, under time-locked visual stimulation, from localized neuronal populations within a cortical column. To help deal with the complexity of generating and analysing these data, we used the Python programming language to develop three software projects: one for temporally precise visual stimulus generation ("dimstim"); one for electrophysiological waveform visualization and spike sorting ("spyke"); and one for spike train and stimulus analysis ("neuropy"). All three are open source and available for download (http://swindale.ecc.ubc.ca/code). The requirements and solutions for these projects differed greatly, yet we found Python to be well suited for all three. Here we present our software as a showcase of the extensive capabilities of Python in neuroscience.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.039

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroinformaticsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207