MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343200793 · doi:10.1002/jnr.23748

Building a minimum frustration framework for brain functions over long time scales

2016· review· en· W2343200793 on OpenAlexafffund
Arturo Tozzi, Tor Flå, James F. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsFrustrationPsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The minimum frustration principle (MFP) is a computational approach stating that, over the long time scales of evolution, proteins' free energy decreases more than expected by thermodynamical constraints as their amino acids assume conformations progressively closer to the lowest energetic state. This Review shows that this general principle, borrowed from protein folding dynamics, can also be fruitfully applied to nervous function. Highlighting the foremost role of energetic requirements, macromolecular dynamics, and above all intertwined time scales in brain activity, the MFP elucidates a wide range of mental processes from sensations to memory retrieval. Brain functions are compared with trajectories that, over long nervous time scales, are attracted toward the low-energy bottom of funnel-like structures characterized by both robustness and plasticity. We discuss how the principle, derived explicitly from evolution and selection of a funneling structure from microdynamics of contacts, is unlike other brain models equipped with energy landscapes, such as the Bayesian and free energy principles and the Hopfield networks. In summary, we make available a novel approach to brain function cast in a biologically informed fashion, with the potential to be operationalized and assessed empirically. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207