MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6939908376 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.23621568

Additional file 4 of mTORC1-mediated acquisition of reward-related representations by hippocampal somatostatin interneurons

2023· article· en· W6939908376 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampal formationCorrelationRepresentation (politics)HippocampusResponse inhibitionShufflingElectrophysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 4: Figure S4. Examples of reorganization of SOM-IN activity, activity correlation, and response type distribution during relearning in control and SOM-Rptor-KO mice. A Example of no reorganization of SOM-IN responses for a cell with "reward off transient" responses at both end of learning and end of relearning. For each session, top left is mean Ca2+ responses and speed as function of position for all trials in the session with reward zone indicated; bottom left is color-coded Ca2+ activity in each trial of the session; top right is place correlation matrix of all paired laps; and bottom right is distribution of r values, mean r versus r distribution obtained by shuffling position measures. B Similar representation of reorganization for a SOM-IN with "reward on sustained" response at end of learning and "non-modulated" response at end of relearning. C Similar representation of reorganization for a SOM-IN with "reward off transient" response at end of learning and "reward off sustained" response at end of relearning. D Similar representation of reorganization for a SOM-IN with a "non-modulated" response at end of learning and "reward on transient" response at end of relearning. E Mean speed correlation with activity for all SOM-INs showing no change during relearning in control and SOM-Rptor-KO mice. F Mean acceleration correlation with activity for all SOM-INs showing no change during relearning in control and SOM-Rptor-KO mice. G Mean deceleration correlation with activity for all SOM-INs showing a decrease during relearning in control but not SOM-Rptor-KO mice. H Cell response identity matrix for all cells in control mice and SOM-Rptor-KO mice during learning and relearning ordered by response type at end of learning, showing a gradual acquisition of a new activity related to reward during relearning in control but not SOM-Rptor-KO mice. I Distribution of cells with different response types at start, middle and end of learning and relearning for control mice and SOM-Rptor-KO mice, showing a decrease in number of modulated cells at start of relearning relative to end of learning, and an increase during relearning in control but not SOM-Rptor-KO mice. Details of statistical tests provided in Additional file 5: Table S1. * p < 0.05, ns not significant.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9000.233

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→