MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Map of Angular Tuning Preference in Thalamic Barreloids

2003· article· en· W2168307514 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Timofeeva, Chantal Mérette, Claudia Émond, Philippa C. Lavallée, Martin Deschênes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleusDorsumNeuroscienceWhiskerThalamusAnatomyPreferenceBiologyPhysicsMathematicsChemistryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A double-labeling protocol was used to determine how cells with different angular preferences to whisker motion distribute across the dimensions of a barreloid in the ventral posterior medial nucleus of the rat thalamus. Individual barreloids were labeled retrogradely by injecting Fluoro-Gold in identified barrel columns, and single relay cells (n = 30) pertaining to the labeled barreloids were stained juxtacellularly with Neurobiotin after determination of their angular tuning preference to controlled whisker deflection. Results show that cells with like angular preference are clustered within the barreloids. Those best tuned to forward and upward directions are located principally in the dorsal sector of the barreloid, whereas those best tuned to backward and downward motion are located principally in the central and ventral sectors, respectively. The relationship between cell location and angular preference was assessed by regression, cluster, and discriminant analysis. Together, these tests indicate that barreloids contain a map of shifting angular preference that transposes along the length of a barreloid directional property imposed at the periphery by the circumferential distribution of receptors around the vibrissa follicles.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations52
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207