Interpreting the taking vs. creating power dichotomy : A case study of the Argentinean labour movement CTA and the Constituyente Social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) is thought to be central for flexible behavioral adaptation. However, the causal relationship between mPFC activity and this behavior is incompletely understood. We investigated whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the mPFC alters flexible behavioral adaptation during reward-based decision-making, targeting Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) coordinates <i>X</i> = -8, <i>Y</i> = 62, <i>Z</i> = 12, which has previously been associated with impaired behavioral adaptation in alcohol-dependent patients. Healthy human participants (<i>n</i> = 61) received either anodal (<i>n</i> = 30) or cathodal (<i>n</i> = 31) tDCS versus sham tDCS while performing a reversal learning task. To assess the mechanisms of reinforcement learning (RL) underlying our behavioral observations, we applied computational models that varied with respect to the updating of the unchosen choice option. We observed that anodal stimulation over the mPFC induced increased choice switching after punishments compared with sham stimulation, whereas cathodal stimulation showed no effect on participants' behavior compared with sham stimulation. RL revealed increased updating of the unchosen choice option under anodal as compared with sham stimulation, which accounted well for the increased tendency to switch after punishments. Our findings provide a potential model for tDCS interventions in conditions related to flexible behavioral adaptation, such as addiction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".