Perfusion Techniques for Neural Tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physiological and pharmacological examination of the nervous system enjoyed enormous popularity over the last several decades It is now possible to record the electrical currents generated by ions passing through individual membrane channels and to define precisely the molecular characteristics of individual receptor aggregates Success in these endeavors has arisen, in part, from the use of sophisticated biochemical, electrophysiological, and pharmacological techniques, often carried out in isolated neural tissue. Despite the wealth of information generated by this approach to brain function, our knowledge of how the brain works as a whole to integrate and direct a basic physiological or behavioral drive is still scanty. The brain is well-endowed with putative neurotransmitter molecules whose functions are still unknown The utility of perfusion technology as a potent tool for addressing this problem is outlined in Table 1 and also has been pointed out previously (Myers, 1972) In this chapter, we will examine critically some of the theoretical and methodological issues raised in perfusing cerebral structures, and give descriptions of the methodology involved In view of space limitations, frequent reference to the literature will be made to assist the reader in obtaining precise descriptions of some of the techniques under discussion Of particular value is the 1972 chapter by Myers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.026 |
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".