MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205879676 · doi:10.1242/jeb.204.14.2431

Microspectrophotometric measurements of vertebrate photoreceptors using CCD-based detection technology

2001· article· en· W2205879676 on OpenAlexaff
Craig W. Hawryshyn, Theodore J. Haimberger, Mark E. Deutschlander

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsorbanceOpticsWavelengthUltravioletCharge-coupled deviceRainbow troutMaterials sciencePhysicsBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have developed a charge-coupled-device (CCD)-based microspectrophotometer (MSP) system and provide the first report on the successful employment of this technology to measure the spectral absorbance properties of vertebrate photoreceptors. The principal difference between the CCD-based MSP system and wavelength-scanning MSP systems, commonly used in vision biology, is that a short duration (800-1200 ms), broad-spectrum flash is employed rather than ascending and descending wavelength scanning. Data acquisition is thus significantly faster, with the added possible advantages of less variance due to movement of target photoreceptors during measurement, reduced spectral distortion due to photoproduct interference and an ability to measure fast, transient changes in absorbance as bleaching proceeds. Rainbow trout photoreceptors, previously measured with a wavelength-scanning MSP system, were again measured using the CCD-based MSP system. Our analysis of optical recordings from 102 photoreceptors corroborated data obtained previously with rainbow trout photoreceptors on lambda(max) (wavelength of maximum absorbance), A(max) (maximum absorbance) and half maximum bandwidth (HBW) of ultraviolet-, blue-, green- and red-sensitive cones and rods. There were slight differences in lambda(max) and half-maximum bandwidth of the ultraviolet-, blue- and green-sensitive cone classes, but this was most probably due to variation in the A(1):A(2) visual pigment ratio of the trout used in the two different studies. However, we were capable of resolving the A(1) and A(2) visual pigment spectra in the red-sensitive cones and the rods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207