Reviewer #1 (Public Review): Imaging of brain electric field networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a method for direct imaging of the electric field networks in the human brain from electroencephalography (EEG) data with much higher temporal and spatial resolution than functional MRI (fMRI), without the concomitant distortions. The method is validated using simultaneous EEG/fMRI data in healthy subjects, intracranial EEG data in epilepsy patients, and in a direct comparison with standard EEG analysis in a well-established attention paradigm. The method is then demonstrated on a very large cohort of subjects performing a standard gambling task designed to activate the brain’s ‘reward circuit’. The technique uses the output from standard EEG systems and thus has potential for immediate benefit to a broad range of important basic scientific and clinical questions concerning brain electrical activity, but also provides an inexpensive and portable alternative to function MRI (fMRI).
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 | 0.062 | 0.386 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.040 |
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".