MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549458251 · doi:10.7554/elife.20713

Neural circuitry coordinating male copulation

2016· article· en· W2549458251 on OpenAlexaff
Hania J. Pavlou, Andrew C. Lin, Megan C. Neville, Tetsuya Nojima, Fengqiu Diao, Brian E. Chen, Benjamin H. White, Stephen F. Goodwin

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsCourtshipNeuroscienceBiologyBiological neural networkCourtship displayNeuronEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copulation is the goal of the courtship process, crucial to reproductive success and evolutionary fitness. Identifying the circuitry underlying copulation is a necessary step towards understanding universal principles of circuit operation, and how circuit elements are recruited into the production of ordered action sequences. Here, we identify key sex-specific neurons that mediate copulation in Drosophila, and define a sexually dimorphic motor circuit in the male abdominal ganglion that mediates the action sequence of initiating and terminating copulation. This sexually dimorphic circuit composed of three neuronal classes – motor neurons, interneurons and mechanosensory neurons – controls the mechanics of copulation. By correlating the connectivity, function and activity of these neurons we have determined the logic for how this circuitry is coordinated to generate this male-specific behavior, and sets the stage for a circuit-level dissection of active sensing and modulation of copulatory behavior.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations84
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207