MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200413011 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.781516

Documentation of the Development of Various Visuomotor Responses in Typically Reared Kittens and Those Reared With Early Selected Visual Exposure by Use of a New Procedure

2021· article· en· W4200413011 on OpenAlexafffund
Katelyn MacNeill, Amber Myatt, Kevin R. Duffy, Donald E. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDocumentationDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyCommunicationAudiologyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new procedure was used to study the development of gaze (responses to moving targets or laser spots in normal kittens, those that had been reared in total darkness to 6 weeks of age, and others that received a period of monocular deprivation (MD). Gaze responses were observed to all stimuli in normal kittens at between 25-30 days of age and striking responses occurred on the same day or the next. Despite slow acquisition of spatial vision in the dark reared kittens over 3 months, they were able to follow and even strike at moving visual stimuli within a day of their initial exposure to light. By contrast, for a week following a period of MD, kittens showed no gaze or striking responses to moving stimuli when using their previously deprived eye. The very different profiles of acquisition of visuomotor skills and spatial vision in visually deprived kittens point to a dissociation between the neuronal populations that support these functions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207