MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6892263468 · doi:10.5061/dryad.zcrjdfncx

Spatial probability maps of the superior parietal sulcus in the human brain

2022· dataset· en· W6892263468 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSulcusSuperior parietal lobuleCentral sulcusHuman brainIntraparietal sulcusParietal lobePosterior parietal cortexInferior parietal lobule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The superior parietal sulcus (SPS) is the defining sulcus within the superior parietal lobule. The morphological variability of the SPS was examined in individual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the human brain that were registered to the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) standard stereotaxic space. Two primary morphological patterns were consistently identified across hemispheres: 1) the SPS was identified as a single sulcus, separating the anterior from the posterior part of the superior parietal lobule and 2) the SPS was found as a complex of multiple sulcal segments. These morphological patterns were subdivided based on whether the SPS or SPS complex remained distinct or merged with surrounding parietal sulci. The morphological variability and spatial extent of the SPS were quantified using volumetric and surface spatial probabilistic mapping. The current investigation established consistent morphological patterns in a common anatomical space, the MNI stereotaxic space, to facilitate structural and functional analyses within the superior parietal lobule.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→