Open science and data sharing in cognitive neuroscience with MouseBytes and MouseBytes+
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open access to rodent cognitive data has lagged behind the rapid generation of large open-access datasets in other areas of neuroscience, such as neuroimaging and genomics. One contributing factor has been the absence of uniform standardization in experiments and data output, an issue that has particularly plagued studies in animal models. Touchscreen-automated cognitive testing of animal models allows standardized outputs that are compatible with open-access sharing. Touchscreen datasets can be combined with different neuro-technologies such as fiber photometry, miniscopes, optogenetics, and MRI to evaluate the relationship between neural activity and behavior. Here we describe a platform that allows deposition of these data into an open-access repository. This platform, called MouseBytes, is a web-based repository that enables researchers to store, share, visualize, and analyze cognitive data. Here we present the architecture, structure, and the essential infrastructure behind MouseBytes. In addition, we describe MouseBytes+, a database that allows data from complementary neuro-technologies such as imaging and photometry to be easily integrated with behavioral data in MouseBytes to support multi-modal behavioral analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.018 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".