MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974125876 · doi:10.1515/revneuro-2019-0059

Could electrical coupling contribute to the formation of cell assemblies?

2019· review· en· W2974125876 on OpenAlexafffund
Roger D. Traub, Miles A. Whittington, Nikolaus Maier, Dietmar Schmitz, J.I. Nagy

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in the Neurosciences · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftWellcome TrustNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInternational Business Machines Corporation
KeywordsCoupling (piping)Cognitive scienceNeuroscienceMaterials scienceEngineeringPsychologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell assemblies and central pattern generators (CPGs) are related types of neuronal networks: both consist of interacting groups of neurons whose collective activities lead to defined functional outputs. In the case of a cell assembly, the functional output may be interpreted as a representation of something in the world, external or internal; for a CPG, the output 'drives' an observable (i.e. motor) behavior. Electrical coupling, via gap junctions, is critical for the development of CPGs, as well as for their actual operation in the adult animal. Electrical coupling is also known to be important in the development of hippocampal and neocortical principal cell networks. We here argue that electrical coupling - in addition to chemical synapses - may therefore contribute to the formation of at least some cell assemblies in adult animals.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.000
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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in the NeurosciencesSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207