MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234155601 · doi:10.3410/f.735386554.793566197

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Corticolimbic Mechanisms of Behavioral Inhibition under Threat of Punishment.

2019· dataset· en· W4234155601 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Floresco

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunishment (psychology)PsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being able to limit the pursuit of reward to prevent negative consequences is an important expression of behavioral inhibition.Everyday examples of an inability to exert such control over behavior are the overconsumption of food and drugs of abuse, which are important factors in the development of obesity and addiction, respectively.Here, we use a behavioral task that assesses the ability of male rats to exert behavioral restraint at the mere sight of palatable food during the presentation of an audiovisual threat cue to investigate the corticolimbic underpinnings of behavioral inhibition.We demonstrate a prominent role for the medial prefrontal cortex in the exertion of control over behavior under threat of punishment.Moreover, task engagement relies on function of the ventral striatum, whereas the basolateral amygdala mediates processing of the threat cue.Together, these data show that inhibition of reward pursuit requires the coordinated action of a network of corticolimbic structures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1360.109

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→