MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Critical Periods in Vision Revisited

2022· review· en· W2564767257 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Vision Science · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVisual cortexNeuroscienceNeural activityCATSPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For four decades, investigations of the biological basis of critical periods in the developing mammalian visual cortex were dominated by study of the consequences of altered early visual experience in cats and nonhuman primates. The neural deficits thus revealed also provided insight into the origin and neural basis of human amblyopia that in turn motivated additional studies of humans with abnormal early visual input. Recent human studies point to deficits arising from alterations in all visual cortical areas and even in nonvisual cortical regions. As the new human data accumulated in parallel with a near-complete shift toward the use of rodent animal models for the study of neural mechanisms, it is now essential to review the human data and the earlier animal data obtained from cats and monkeys to infer general conclusions and to optimize future choice of the most appropriate animal model.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.362 · 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