Demonstration and validation of Kernel Density Estimation for spatial meta-analyses in cognitive neuroscience using simulated data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The data presented in this article are related to the research article entitled "Convergence of semantics and emotional expression within the IFG pars orbitalis" (Belyk et al., 2017) [1]. The research article reports a spatial meta-analysis of brain imaging experiments on the perception of semantic compared to emotional communicative signals in humans. This Data in Brief article demonstrates and validates the use of Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) as a novel statistical approach to neuroimaging data. First, we performed a side-by-side comparison of KDE with a previously published meta-analysis that applied activation likelihood estimation, which is the predominant approach to meta-analyses in cognitive neuroscience. Second, we analyzed data simulated with known spatial properties to test the sensitivity of KDE to varying degrees of spatial separation. KDE successfully detected true spatial differences in simulated data and displayed few false positives when no true differences were present. R code to simulate and analyze these data is made publicly available to facilitate the further evaluation of KDE for neuroimaging data and its dissemination to cognitive neuroscientists.
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 | 0.255 | 0.557 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".