Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, differing views as to the genesis of monophasic action potential (MAP) recordings have surfaced [1–3]. Kondo et al. [1,3] claim that MAP recordings come about because core conductor theory dictates that the extracellular potential is a scaled version of the transmembrane voltage and that the contact electrode acts as a stationary ground. Franz [2] holds to the view that injury currents at the boundary of the contact electrode zone of influence lead to extracellular potential changes which reflect changes in transmembrane voltage. As a consequence of these divergent views, the importance of one electrode with respect to the other has come into question. MAP electrodes are similar to potentials recorded with the sucrose gap technique [4]. That is, the technique functions as MAP recordings do, indirectly measuring transmembrane voltage by differencing extracellular potentials. Due to its relative simplicity, this technique warrants further consideration to determine if similar physics concepts are at work, which may shed light on the present issue. The sucrose gap technique separates two portions of an active cable with a perfusion of sucrose solution that serves to stop propagation of any activity across the gap due to the high resistivity of the sucrose region. The intracellular domains are still connected. By taking the difference in extracellular potentials on opposite sides of the sucrose gap, an approximation of the transmembrane voltage is obtained.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".