MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618387153 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.13.2.p105

Spike neural models (part I): The Hodgkin-Huxley model

2017· article· en· W2618387153 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpike (software development)Hodgkin–Huxley modelNeuroscienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial neural networks, or ANNs, have grown a lot since their inception back in the 1940s. But no matter the changes, one of the most important components of neural networks is still the node, which represents the neuron. Within spiking neural networks, the node is especially important because it contains the functions and properties of neurons that are necessary for their network. One important aspect of neurons is the ionic flow which produces action potentials, or spikes. Forces of diffusion and electrostatic pressure work together with the physical properties of the cell to move ions around changing the cell membrane potential which ultimately produces the action potential. This tutorial reviews the Hodkgin-Huxley model and shows how it simulates the ionic flow of the giant squid axon via four differential equations. The model is implemented in Matlab using Euler's Method to approximate the differential equations. By using Euler's method, an extra parameter is created, the time step. This new parameter needs to be carefully considered or the results of the node may be impaired.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.361
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.186 · 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