MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF THE ASCIDIAN TADPOLE LARVA: Recent Developments in an Ancient Chordate

2004· review· en· W2160125482 on OpenAlexaff
Ian A. Meinertzhagen, Patrick Lemaire, Yasushi Okamura

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Neuroscience · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChordateBiologyCiona intestinalisCionaNeurogenesisNotochordElectroporationTadpole (physics)Body planNeuroscienceVertebrateFate mappingLampreyMorpholinoCell biologyGeneZebrafishGeneticsEmbryonic stem cellEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With little more than 330 cells, two thirds within the sensory vesicle, the CNS of the tadpole larva of the ascidian Ciona intestinalis provides us with a chordate nervous system in miniature. Neurulation, neurogenesis and its genetic bases, as well as the gene expression territories of this tiny constituency of cells all follow a chordate plan, giving rise in some cases to frank structural homologies with the vertebrate brain. Recent advances are fueled by the release of the genome and EST expression databases and by the development of methods to transfect embryos by electroporation. Immediate prospects to test the function of neural genes are based on the isolation of mutants by classical genetics and insertional mutagenesis, as well as by the disruption of gene function by morpholino antisense oligo-nucleotides. Coupled with high-speed video analysis of larval swimming, optophysiological methods offer the prospect to analyze at single-cell level the function of a CNS built on a vertebrate plan.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
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

Citations106
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of NeuroscienceSame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207