Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Memories of past events can be recalled long after the event, indicating stability. But new experiences are also integrated into existing memories, indicating plasticity. In the hippocampus, spatial representations are known to remain stable, but have also been shown to drift over long periods of time. We hypothesized that experience, more than the passage of time, is the driving force behind memory plasticity. We compared the stability of place cells in the hippocampus of mice traversing two similar, familiar tracks for different durations. We found that the more time spent in an environment, the greater the representational drift, regardless of the total elapsed time. Our results suggest that spatial representation is a dynamic process, related to the ongoing experiences within a specific context, and is related to the accumulation of new memories rather than to passive forgetting. Highlights Representational drift is related to experience within an environment. Representational drift is a dynamic context-wide process. Place cell number decreases with experience, spatial information content increases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.020 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".