MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169090997 · doi:10.1162/neco.2008.07-06-295

Solving the Problem of Negative Synaptic Weights in Cortical Models

2008· article· en· W2169090997 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Parisien, Charles H. Anderson, Chris Eliasmith

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Computation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)ConstructiveComputer scienceFeed forwardArtificial neural networkFeedforward neural networkArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cortical neural networks, connections from a given neuron are either inhibitory or excitatory but not both. This constraint is often ignored by theoreticians who build models of these systems. There is currently no general solution to the problem of converting such unrealistic network models into biologically plausible models that respect this constraint. We demonstrate a constructive transformation of models that solves this problem for both feedforward and dynamic recurrent networks. The resulting models give a close approximation to the original network functions and temporal dynamics of the system, and they are biologically plausible. More precisely, we identify a general form for the solution to this problem. As a result, we also describe how the precise solution for a given cortical network can be determined empirically.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations95
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural ComputationSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207