Data for parametrizing alternating current stimulation for neuromodulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data collected using a 4x4 multielectrode array (Microprobes) in propofol anesthetized rats receiving subcutaneous alternating current stimulation.Recording electrodes had platinum iridium shanks with a tip width of 125μm, an impedance of 0.4 MOhm, and were spaced 0.5mm apart in the lateral plane. An additional shank with 10 kOhm impedance served as a reference. Electrodes were inserted ~300μm into the craniotomy exposed sensorimotor cortex (L2/3). Data was acquired with a sampling rate of 24 kHz (Tucker-Davis Technologies).Stimulation electrodes were adhered directly to the skull, medial and lateral the cranial window.There are two data files. The first contains experiments where 9 three-month old Sprague-Dawley rats received a randomized order of stimulation parameters (frequencies: 5, 10, 20, 40, and 140 Hz, amplitudes: 50, 100, 200, and 400 μA). Each dated folder contains recordings for a single rat, with subfolders for each stimulation parameter delivery (1-min baseline + 1-min sACS + 1-min baseline).The second data file contains experiments where 13 rats received a single 20-min delivery of 40 Hz, 100 μA stimulation. Each dated folder contains experiments from a single rat. Baseline activity was recorded for 20-min before stimulation onset and subsequently following sACS for 10 minutes. Additional subfolders contain further 20-min of post stimulation baseline activity, collected to an hour following stimulation offset.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.027 |
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".