MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607936805 · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2017.03.019

Sleep slow oscillation and plasticity

2017· review· en· W2607936805 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

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMemory consolidationNeuroscienceLong-term potentiationSleep (system call)NeuroplasticitySynaptic plasticityPsychologyMetaplasticitySleep spindleConsolidation (business)Slow-wave sleepMedicineHippocampusElectroencephalographyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well documented that sleep contributes to memory consolidation and it is also accepted that long-term synaptic plasticity plays a critical role in memory formation. The mechanisms of this sleep-dependent memory formation are unclear. Two main hypotheses are proposed. According to the first one, synapses are potentiated during wake; and during sleep they are scaled back to become available for the learning tasks in the next day. The other hypothesis is that sleep slow oscillations potentiate synapses that were depressed due to persistent activities during the previous day and that potentiation provides physiological basis for memory consolidation. The objective of this review is to group information on whether cortical synapses are up-scaled or down-scaled during sleep. We conclude that the majority of cortical synapses are up-regulated by sleep slow oscillation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.382
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.092 · 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