Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engram labelling and manipulation methodologies are now a staple of contemporary neuroscientific practice, giving the impression that the physical basis of engrams has been discovered. Despite enormous progress, engrams have not been clearly identified, and it is unclear what they should looklike. There is an epistemic bias in engram neuroscience towards characterising biological changes,while neglecting the development of theory. However, the tools of engram biology are excitingprecisely because they are not just an incremental step forward in understanding the mechanisms ofplasticity and learning, but because they can be leveraged to inform theory on one of the fundamental mysteries in neuroscience—how and in what format the brain stores information. We do not propose such a theory here, as we first require an appreciation for what is lacking. We outline a selection ofissues in four sections from theoretical biology and philosophy that engram biology and systems neuroscience generally should engage with in order to construct useful future theoretical frameworks.Specifically, what is it that engrams are supposed to explain? How do the different building blocks of the brain-wide engram come together? What exactly are these component parts? And what information do they carry, if they carry anything at all? Asking these questions is not purely the privilege of philosophy, but a key to informing scientific hypotheses that make the most of the experimental tools at our disposal. The risk for not engaging with these issues is high. Without a theory of what engrams are, what they do, and the wider computational processes they fit into, we may never know when they have been found.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.010 |
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".