MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4299350012 · doi:10.26443/msurj.v4i1.77

Roles of Dopamine D1 and D2 Receptors in Working Memory Function

2009· article· en· W4299350012 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Liggins

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Science Undergraduate Research Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceDopamineWorking memoryDopaminergicDopamine receptorDopamine receptor D2Prefrontal cortexPsychologyCognitionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dopamine has been implicated in the modulation of working memory via its interactions with circuits located in the prefrontal cortex of rodents and non-human primates. However, the role that pathways triggered by dopamine receptor subtypes play in affecting processes of working memory remains unclear. In humans, the evidence for dopaminergic modulation of working memory is controversial and the neurological substrates for dopamine’s modulatory effects are not fully understood. This paper will review the major animal and human studies that implicate synaptic dopaminergic transmission in working memory function and will outline a new framework to clarify the specific contribution of dopamine D2 receptors to the performance of this cognitive function. Specifically, it is proposed that activation of hippocampal dopamine D2 receptors by chemical agonists could result in the enhancement of spatial working memory.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Science Undergraduate Research JournalSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207