MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Information-Limiting Correlations in Neural Populations: The Devil Is in the Details

2020· letter· en· W3091964926 on OpenAlexaff
Reebal W. Rafeh, Geetika Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)NeuroscienceLimitingNeural activityPremovement neuronal activityBiological neural networkPsychologyCommunicationCognitive psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurons are noisy. Neuronal activity varies in response to repetitions of the same stimulus. Neuronal noise is ubiquitous in the brain and is often correlated among neighboring neurons, which means that stimulus-independent fluctuations in neuronal activity can affect entire populations of cells ([

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0150.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→