Data Set Of Ca1 Pyramidal Cell Recordings Using An Intact Whole Hippocampus Preparation, Including Recordings Of Rebound Firing (V2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequency-current (f-I) profiles and an example of rebound firing of pyramidal cells are presented. Four .abf files contain the f-I curve data for the respective cell (as labelled PYR1, PYR2, PYR3 and PYR4 for Pyramidal cell 1, Pyramidal cell 2, Pyramidal cell 3 and Pyramidal cell 4). That is, they contain the cell's response to the application of a series of depolarizing current steps of 1 s duration while the cells are held in current clamp, as well as the current clamp data itself. Each recording is 2 s total. Amplitudes of the input were increased incrementally with step sizes of 10 pA for PYR1, PYR3, and PYR4, and a step size of 25 pA for PYR 2. PYR1 first spikes on the 5th of 30 steps with 38.7 pA of depolarizing input. PYR2 first spikes on the 3rd of 13 steps with 1.2 pA of input. PYR3 first spikes on the 7th of 34 steps with 62.0 pA of input, and PYR4 first spikes on the 7th of 30 steps with 12.1 pA of input. In the .abf file labelled PYR5_rebound, an example of rebound firing of a pyramidal cell following hyperpolarizing input is given. While the cell was held at -52 mV in current clamp, as series of 1 s hyperpolarizing steps (10 steps, 25 pA increments) were used to record the post- hyperpolarization rebound spiking. For the figure showing this rebound spiking (Figure 1), the first two hyperpolarizing steps and the respective firing are shown. For visualization purposes, the spike artifact in the current clamp input trace was removed and replaced with the mean current in the Figure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".