MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407537792 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2015-0260

Neuronal diversity and their spine density in the hippocampal complex of the House Crow (<i>Corvus splendens</i>), a food-storing bird

2016· article· en· W2407537792 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Urvashi Srivastava, Durgesh Singh, Prashant Kumar, Sippy Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity Grants Commission
KeywordsBiologyHippocampal formationHippocampusNeuroscienceDendritic spineSPINE (molecular biology)ZoologyAnatomyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hippocampus, one of the parts included in the limbic system, is involved in various functions such as learning, memory, food-storing behavior, and sexual discrimination. Neuronal classes of the hippocampal complex in food-storing birds have been also reported, but the study lacks details pertaining to neuronal characteristics and the spine density of the neurons in different subfields of the hippocampus. Hence, the present study was undertaken with the aim to explore the morphology of neurons and the spines present on their dendrites within the hippocampal complex of the House Crow (Corvus splendens Vieillot, 1817), a food-storing Indian bird, and to compare it with previously reported nonfood-storing bird species. It was observed that the hippocampus of C. splendens harbors diverse neuronal classes with substantial percentages of pyramidal neurons, well-developed local circuit neurons, and high spine density. All these neuronal specializations in C. splendens can be related with the food-storing behavior of the bird, which itself is an advantage over nonfood-storing birds.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207