Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, sleep spindles have attracted steadily increasing attention. This interest is motivated by the many intriguing relationships between spindles and various diseases (e.g., schizophrenia, Parkinson, Alzheimer, autism, mental retardation), recovery processes (e.g., post brain stroke), and cognitive faculties (e.g., memory consolidation, intelligence, dream recall, sleep preservation). Nonetheless, a methodological wall has impeded the study of sleep spindles. Their investigation rests heavily on our ability to reliably and consistently identify spindle patterns from background EEG activity, a task involving many obstacles, including: a fuzzy definition of spindles, low inter-expert agreement on their scoring, lack of consensus on standard techniques for their automated detection, low reproducibility of observed characteristics and correlates, unavailability of large, standardized, high-quality databases, and inconsistencies in the methods used to evaluate the performance of automated detectors. The primary aims of this research topic were to bring together world-class researchers on a project designed to facilitate exchanges on methodological difficulties encountered in assessing sleep spindles and to promote standardized spindle-related resources. In preparing their contributions, authors were encouraged to use existing – or to propose new – publicly available resources for assessing sleep spindles. To allow fair and accurate comparison of reported results, the authors were also encouraged to validate their tools on a common benchmark. A database containing expert spindle scoring (i.e., the Montreal Archive of Sleep Studies) was made publicly available for that purpose.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".