MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306673453 · doi:10.3390/vision6040062

Reliable, Fast and Stable Contrast Response Function Estimation

2022· article· en· W4306673453 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueVision · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCRFSContrast (vision)Poisson distributionDuration (music)Spike (software development)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Conditional random field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was conducted to determine stable cortical contrast response functions (CRFs) accurately and repeatedly in the shortest possible experimentation time. The method consisted of searching for experimental temporal aspects (number and duration of trials and number and distribution of contrasts used) with a model based on inhomogeneous Poisson spike trains to varying contrast levels. The set of values providing both short experimental duration and maximizing fit of the CRFs were saved, and then tested on cats' visual cortical neurons. Our analysis revealed that 4 sets of parameters with less or equal to 6 experimental visual contrasts satisfied our premise of obtaining good CRFs' performance in a short recording period, in which the number of trials seems to be the experimental condition that stabilizes the fit.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.278 · 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