Coverage
stale · v4 provisional awaiting approvalWhat does the paper assert that no claim represents?
for Distinct representational properties of cues and contexts shape fear and reversal learning · this layer across all papers · json
Provisional
This layer needs a corpus-scope decision that has not been ruled on yet, so what it produces would change if the decision changed. It waits on claim-format, relation-vocab.
Awaiting approval
Waiting for approval. That is a statement about the record, not about whether anyone has read this: people read the corpus without stamping what they read, and only a stamp leaves a trace. Approval is an operation on a version, not a step of its own — it is recorded against the version it was granted to, so running this layer again does not carry it forward.
Out of date
These inputs changed after this ran:
- claims/bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa/cue-generalization-increases-acquisition.md
What it produced16 spans.orphans
Read from coverage/bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa.json · 6 KB. claims 30panels.pct 41.2statistics.total 15statistics.pct 73.3spans.segmented 320spans.obligations 59spans.textual 261spans.accounted 43spans.pct 72.9
| # | uid | section | text | stats | panels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | introduction-038 | introduction | (A) Example structure of a trial. | [] | ["fig1a"] |
| 2 | introduction-041 | introduction | ( B ) Paradigm structure with four different experimental phases (rows) and four different cue types (columns). | [] | ["fig1b"] |
| 3 | introduction-043 | introduction | ( C ) Conditioned stimulus (CS) items (left) and context videos (right). | [] | ["fig1c"] |
| 4 | introduction-046 | introduction | ( D ) Representational Similarity Matrices (RSMs) for each experimental phase, shown here from the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) for illustrative purposes. | [] | ["fig1d","fig1a","fig1c"] |
| 5 | introduction-049 | introduction | ( E ) Top: Cue generalization mask for the representational similarity analysis (RSA) matrices estimated within each searchlight. | [] | ["fig1e"] |
| 6 | results-029 | results | ( B ) Cue representations during reversal. | [] | ["fig3b"] |
| 7 | results-043 | results | We first compared CS++ and CS-- cues, corresponding to the CS+ vs. CS- contrast during fear acquisition ( Figure 3B ). | [] | ["fig3b"] |
| 8 | results-054 | results | However, item stability was higher for CS+- vs. CS ++cues in a middle temporal cluster during test new ( Figure 3E ), and for CS++ compared to CS-- cues in an inferior temporal cluster during test old… | [] | ["fig3e","fig3f"] |
| 9 | results-080 | results | We also compared this measure across experimental phases and related it to the representational geometries of cues ( Figure 5A ). | [] | ["fig5a"] |
| 10 | results-082 | results | ( A ) Calculation of context specificity as the difference of within-context similarity and between-context similarity. | [] | ["fig5a"] |
| 11 | results-085 | results | ( C ) Calculation of item reinstatement and generalized reinstatement (similarities of item representations across different phases; left) and context specificity (difference between acquisition and r… | [] | ["fig5c"] |
| 12 | results-087 | results | ( D ) Higher context specificity during reversal predicted reinstatement during test old , as a function of CS type: ( Di ) Higher reversal context specificity predicted more pronounced generalized re… | [] | ["fig5d","fig5a","fig5c"] |
| 13 | results-096 | results | We extracted subject-wise measures of context specificity from the PFC cluster in Figure 4B and compared them to both item reinstatement and generalized reinstatement. | [] | ["fig4b"] |
| 14 | results-099 | results | We used LME models with ‘context specificity’ and ‘cue type’ as predictors and ‘item reinstatement’ or ‘generalized reinstatement’ as the dependent variable ( Figure 5C ). | [] | ["fig5c"] |
| 15 | discussion-035 | discussion | Interestingly, representations from the first test phase were less reinstated during the second test phase (despite the fact that both test phases occurred during the second experimental day), compare… | [] | ["fig4e"] |
| 16 | discussion-048 | discussion | This suggests that for these cues, the more distinct the contextual encoding during reversal, the more strongly the original fear memory trace resurfaced, likely reflecting a return of fear ( Figure 5… | [] | ["fig5d"] |
Artifacts
Versions
From the run ledger. There is no changelog beside it to keep in step.
-
v4 · 2026-09-13 · scripts/pipeline.py run
ran via scripts/pipeline.py
cd extract && python3 -m elife_extract.cli coverage --paper bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa --json ../coverage/bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa.json
-
v3 · 2026-09-13 · scripts/pipeline.py run
ran via scripts/pipeline.py
cd extract && python3 -m elife_extract.cli coverage --paper bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa --json ../coverage/bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa.json
-
v2 · 2026-09-12 · scripts/pipeline.py run
re-run after prepare v2
cd extract && python3 -m elife_extract.cli coverage --paper bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa --json ../coverage/bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa.json
-
v1 · 2026-09-11 · scripts/pipeline.py run
coverage for the nine papers that had none
cd extract && python3 -m elife_extract.cli coverage --paper bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa --json ../coverage/bouyeure-2026-fear-rsa.json
This layer across the corpus
Across the corpus
4 blocked upstream · 6 stale·a paper links to its own cell, where this layer's output for it is rendered
Inputs and outputs
- Produces
-
- coverage/{paper}.json
One per paper — the table above links each one that exists.
- Views
-
- document — declared, and this artifact is not the shape this view needs
- table — rendered above, over the 128 spans.orphans in the artifact
Running it
The command comes from the declaration, so this text and what actually runs cannot
diverge. pipeline.py run also runs the unmet dependencies first.
python3 scripts/pipeline.py run <paper> coverage
Underneath, that runs cd extract && python3 -m claim_graphs.cli coverage --paper {paper} --json ../coverage/{paper}.json.