MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

altVerto: Using Intervention andCommunity to Promote AlternativeTransportation (presentation video)

2006· article· en· W31783115 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael McQuaid

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto Scarborough
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Intervention (counseling)Computer scienceMultimediaPsychologyWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fundamental to the understanding of the functions of spatial cognition and attention is to clarify the underlying neural mechanisms. It is clear that relatively right-dominant activity in ventral and dorsal parieto-frontal cortex is associated with attentional reorienting, certain forms of mental imagery and spatial working memory for higher loads, while lesions mostly to right ventral areas cause spatial neglect with pathological attentional biases to the right side. In contrast, complementary leftward biases in healthy people, called pseudoneglect, have been associated with varying patterns of cortical activity. Notably, this inconsistency may be explained, at least in part, by the fact that pseudoneglect studies have often employed experimental paradigms that do not control sufficiently for cognitive processes unrelated to pseudoneglect. To address this issue, here we administered a carefully designed continuum of pseudoneglect and control tasks in healthy adults while using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Data submitted to partial least square (PLS) imaging analysis yielded a significant latent variable that identified a right-dominant network of brain regions along the intra-occipital and -parietal sulci, frontal eye fields and right ventral cortex in association with perceptual pseudoneglect. Our results shed new light on the interplay of attentional and cognitive systems in pseudoneglect.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207