MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413977180 · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2025.101593

Situation models and the default mode network

2025· article· en· W4413977180 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander J. Barnett, Buddhika Bellana

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalYork UniversityMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDefault mode networkMode (computer interface)Computer sciencePsychologyNeuroscienceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive neuroscientists continue to puzzle over how the default mode network (DMN) contributes to cognition. A renewed interest in studying narratives has led to a compelling possibility: the DMN tracks our evolving understanding of the current ‘state of affairs’ — a situation model. In this piece, we draw upon work in discourse processing to characterize what a situation model is and then use this framework to evaluate recent neuroimaging evidence. Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies demonstrate multivariate DMN activity is sensitive to an individual’s construal of the current situation. We also propose that (i) DMN situation representations are not specific to social or narrative content and instead summarize the current task state; and (ii) DMN representations are relatively low resolution and work alongside the hippocampus in service of event comprehension. Overall, we contend that situation models provide a productive framework for understanding the role of the DMN in human cognition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Behavioral SciencesSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207