MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242145186 · doi:10.3410/f.732274976.793571333

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Frontal cortex and the hierarchical control of behavior.

2020· dataset· en· W4242145186 on OpenAlexaff
Lesley K. Fellows

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchMultidisciplinary University Research InitiativeNational Institute of Mental HealthJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsFrontal cortexPsychologyControl (management)NeuroscienceCortex (anatomy)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceCognitive scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The frontal lobes are important for cognitive control, yet their functional organization remains controversial.An influential class of theory proposes that the frontal lobes are organized along their rostro-caudal axis to support hierarchical cognitive control.Here, we take an updated look at the literature on hierarchical control, with particular focus on the functional organization of lateral frontal cortex.Our review of the evidence supports neither a unitary model of lateral frontal function nor a unidimensional abstraction gradient.Rather, separate frontal networks interact via local and global hierarchical structure to support diverse task demands.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1100.142

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.369 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreDataset

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topicCommunication in Education and HealthcareFrench-language works237,207