MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280489643 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.887790

Experience-Dependent Egr1 Expression in the Hippocampus of Japanese Quail

2022· article· en· W4280489643 on OpenAlexafffund
Chelsey C. Damphousse, Noam Miller, Diano F. Marrone

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuailEGR1Hippocampal formationNeuroscienceContext (archaeology)HippocampusPlace cellExpression (computer science)BiologyPsychologyGene expressionGeneticsComputer scienceEndocrinologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hippocampal formation (HF) is a structure critical to navigation and many forms of memory. In mammals, the firing of place cells is widely regarded as the fundamental unit of HF information processing. Supporting homology between the avian and mammalian HF, context-specific patterns of Egr1 have been reported in birds that are comparable to those produced by place cell firing in mammals. Recent electrophysiological data, however, suggest that many avian species lack place cells, potentially undermining the correspondence between Egr1 and place cell-related firing in the avian brain. To clarify this, the current study examines Egr1 expression in Japanese quail under conditions known to elicit only weakly spatially modulated firing patterns and report robust context-dependent Egr1 expression. These data confirm that context-dependent expression of Egr1 is not dependent on precise place fields and provide insight into how these birds are able to perform complex spatial tasks despite lacking mammalian-like place cells.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207