Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mapping brain functions to their underlying neural substrates is a central goal of cognitive neuroscience. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has proven indispensable in this endeavour. Recently, there has been growing interest in tackling this problem by mapping semantic concepts onto brain regions using repositories of images and text from the neuroimaging literature. However, no study has thus far approached this problem using (dense) vector representations of words. Using data from the Neurosynth database, we sought to develop a model that could (A) capture local correlations between words in text, as well as topics, (B) capture representation of distributed brain networks in relation to word embeddings, and (C) generate synthetic images given word inputs. We show that jointly embedding words and brain imaging data on a vector space can yield semantic representations that sensibly relate concepts across biological, psychological, and observational levels of analysis. Moreover, our proposed model makes no assumption about spatial orientation of fMRI voxels, which allows for embedding of distributed brain networks onto the semantic space. We demonstrate this capability by generating synthetic brain activation vectors from word inputs. Our model has the potential to advance neuroimaging meta-analysis as well as contextual word-embedding methods more broadly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.337 | 0.181 |
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".