Perancangan corporate identity dan aplikasinya untuk membangun citra baru Percetakan Seriti Mas Offset Printing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the encoding specificity hypothesis, memory is best recalled by retrieval cues that overlap with training cues. Human studies generally support this hypothesis. However, memories are thought to be stored in neuronal ensembles (engrams), and retrieval cues are thought to reactivate neurons in an engram to induce memory recall. Here, we visualized engrams in mice to test whether retrieval cues that overlap with training cues produce maximal memory recall via high engram reactivation (engram encoding specificity hypothesis). Using variations of cued threat conditioning (pairing conditioned stimulus [CS] with footshock), we manipulated encoding and retrieval conditions along multiple domains, including pharmacological state, external sensory cue, and internal optogenetic cue. Maximal engram reactivation and memory recall occurred when retrieval conditions closely matched training conditions. These findings provide a biological basis for the encoding specificity hypothesis and highlight the important interaction between stored information (engram) and cues available at memory retrieval (ecphory).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".