Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Charles F. Stevens

dblp:83/6613 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 1999
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 3 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Information theory · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology
computational neuroscience
0.021995
When is an Integrate-and-fire Neuron like a Poisson Neuron? · NIPS 1995
Information through a Spiking Neuron · NIPS 1995
Information theory
neural coding
0.011995
Information through a Spiking Neuron · NIPS 1995

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

information theory · 0.0stochastic neuron modeling · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1999 Wiring Optimization in the Brain
Dmitri B. Chklovskii, Charles F. Stevens
NIPS2
1995 Information through a Spiking Neuron
Charles F. Stevens, Anthony M. Zador
NIPS1
1995 When is an Integrate-and-fire Neuron like a Poisson Neuron?
Charles F. Stevens, Anthony M. Zador
NIPS1
1989 How Cortical Interconnectedness Varies with Network Size
abstract
When model neural networks are used to gain insight into how the brain might carry out its computations, comparisons between features of the network and those of the brain form an important basis for drawing conclusions about the network's relevance to brain function. The most significant features to be compared, of course, relate to behavior of the units. Another network property that would be useful to consider, however, is the extent to which units are interconnected and the law by which unit-unit connections scale as the network is made larger. The goal of this paper is to consider these questions for neocortex. The conclusion will be that neocortical neurons are rather sparsely interconnected — each neuron receives direct synaptic input from fewer than 3% of its neighbors underlying the surrounding square millimeter of cortex — and the extent of connectedness hardly changes for brains that range in size over about four orders of magnitude. These conclusions support the currently popular notion that the brain's circuits are highly modular and suggest that increased cortex size is mainly achieved by adding more modules.
Charles F. Stevens
Neural Comput.1