MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388362963 · doi:10.1016/j.ibneur.2023.08.1777

EXAMINING THE ENGRAM ENCODING SPECIFICITY HYPOTHESIS IN MICE

2023· article· en· W4388362963 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIBRO Neuroscience Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicChemical Reactions and Isotopes
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngramEncoding (memory)NeurosciencePsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memories are thought to be stored in sparse groups of neurons (engrams), and retrieval cues reactivate engrams to elicit memory recall. A long-standing theory suggests that the best memory retrieval is mediated by retrieval cues that match training cues (the encoding specificity hypothesis). Human behavioral and imaging studies generally support this hypothesis, but it is not possible to test encoding specificity at the neural aggregate level. We observed specific neuronal population activation and reactivation during auditory fear encoding and retrieval mediated at the lateral amygdala (critical brain region for fear learning and memory association).

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.130 · 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