MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047315945 · doi:10.18280/ria.340315

Classifying Brain State in Sentence Polarity Exposure: An ANN Model for fMRI Data

2020· article· en· W3047315945 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashish Ranjan, Vibhav Prakash Singh, Anil Kumar Singh, Anil Thakur, Ravi Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarity (international relations)SentenceNeuroscienceResting state fMRIArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceNatural language processingState (computer science)PsychologyPattern recognition (psychology)ChemistryAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain being the most complex organ of human body in which millions of neuron are connected to each other, and pass information in processing of thoughts, emotions, motor activities and linguistic phenomenon. With the advent of non-invasive neuro-anatomical analysis methods like PET scan, fMRI it is now easy to measure neuronal changes in brain. This study analyses the neuronal activity in the brain in sentence polarity detection task using multilayer perceptron classification methodology. The whole brain is divided into almost 5000 three-dimensional volume called voxels from which prominent voxels are selected using symmetrical uncertainty based on entropy for the classification of brain state. The proposed method achieved significantly higher accuracy in classifying brain state in the processing of affirmative and negative sentences. The result obtained also shows that certain brain regions like left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC) and calcarine sulcus (CALC) are prominent areas which are deterministic in classification of affirmative and negative sentences in brain while right posterior pre-central sulcus (RPPREC) and right supramarginal gyrus (RSGA) are less contributing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.049 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207