MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2964113410 · doi:10.1109/mlsp.2018.8517084

Space-Time Extension of the MEM Approach for Electromagnetic Neuroimaging

2018· preprint· en· W2964113410 on OpenAlexafffund
M.C. Roubaud, J.-M. Lina, Julie Carrier, Bruno Torrésani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkUniversité de MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Nationale de la RechercheCentre de Recherches Mathématiques
KeywordsDimensionality reductionKronecker productWaveletComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Inverse problemDimension (graph theory)AlgorithmEntropy (arrow of time)Regularization (linguistics)Applied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical optimizationKronecker deltaArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wavelet Maximum Entropy on the Mean (wMEM) approach to the MEG inverse problem is revisited and extended to infer brain activity from full space-time data. The resulting dimensionality increase is tackled using a collection of techniques, that includes time and space dimension reduction (using respectively wavelet and spatial filter based reductions), Kronecker product modeling for covariance matrices, and numerical manipulation of the free energy directly in matrix form. This leads to a smooth numerical optimization problem of reasonable dimension, solved using standard approaches.The method is applied to the MEG inverse problem. Results of a simulation study in the context of slow wave localization from sleep MEG data are presented and discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→