Recording and Analysis of Putative Direct Electrical Interactions in the Mammalian Brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of electrical transmission in the mammalian central nervous-system (CNS) and its functional implications for normal physiology and pathology has generated much controversy. While it was proposed as early as the mid-19th century that neurotransmission could be electrical and chemical ( 1 ), experimental evidence for chemical neurotransmission obtained by Loewi, Eccles, Katz, and colleagues ( 2 , 3 ), undermined the concept of electrical coupling. The first evidence for electrical transmission occurred in invertebrate preparations and was reported almost simultaneously by Watanabe in 1958 ( 4 ), and by Furshpan and Potter in 1959 ( 5 ), the former venturing that the electrical coupling promoted synchronous firing of neurons. Experimental evidence for electrical transmission in vertebrates was obtained by Bennett and colleagues in 1966–67 ( 6 , 7 ) while working on the supramedullary neurons of the pufferfish and the motoneurons of the toadfish, where high frequency synchronous contractions of the swim bladder muscle require electrically coupled neurons. Later in 1973, Henri Korn and colleagues found electrical interactions in mammals ( 8 ), and at the same time Baker and Llinas found evidence for electrical transmission in the rat mesencephalic nucleus ( 9 ). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".