MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387965059 · doi:10.1113/jp281510

Silences, spikes and bursts: Three‐part knot of the neural code

2023· review· en· W4387965059 on OpenAlexafffund
Zachary Friedenberger, Emerson F. Harkin, Katalin Tóth, Richard Naud

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroscienceNeural codingPhysicsComputer scienceCommunicationBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a neuron breaks silence, it can emit action potentials in a number of patterns. Some responses are so sudden and intense that electrophysiologists felt the need to single them out, labelling action potentials emitted at a particularly high frequency with a metonym - bursts. Is there more to bursts than a figure of speech? After all, sudden bouts of high-frequency firing are expected to occur whenever inputs surge. The burst coding hypothesis advances that the neural code has three syllables: silences, spikes and bursts. We review evidence supporting this ternary code in terms of devoted mechanisms for burst generation, synaptic transmission and synaptic plasticity. We also review the learning and attention theories for which such a triad is beneficial.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations52
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207