MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2891363187 · doi:10.1101/411033

Asymmetric adaptation reveals functional lateralization for graded versus discrete stimuli

2018· preprint· en· W2891363187 on OpenAlexafffund
Melanie J. Desrochers, Marianne Lang, Michael Hendricks

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Aversive StimulusSensory systemNeuroscienceNeuroethologyPsychologyBiologyCommunicationCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 150 words Animal navigation strategies depend on the nature of the environmental cues used. In the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans , navigation has been studied in the context of gradients of attractive or repellent stimuli as well is in response to acute aversive stimuli. We wanted to better understand how sensory responses to the same stimulus vary between graded and acute stimuli, and how this variation relates to behavioral responses. C. elegans has two salt-sensing neurons, ASEL and ASER, that show opposite responses to stepped changes in stimulus levels, however only ASER has been shown to play a prominent role in salt chemotaxis. We used pre-exposure to natural stimuli to manipulate the responsiveness of these neurons and tested their separate contributions to behavior. Our results suggest ASEL is specialized for responses to acute stimulus changes. We also found that ASER remains responsive to graded stimuli under conditions where it is unresponsive to large steps.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms→French-language works237,207→