MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1481259270 · doi:10.1002/dev.21189

Juvenile play experience does not affect nicotine sensitization and voluntary consumption of nicotine in adult rats

2013· article· en· W1481259270 on OpenAlexaff
Brett T. Himmler, A. Nakahashi, E. Snow, Anthony McMickle, Arif Muhammad, Kris Biondolillo, Sergio M. Pellis, Bryan Kolb

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNicotinePsychologyJuvenileSensitizationBehavioral sensitizationAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyAmphetamineStimulationSalineAnesthesiaMedicinePsychiatryNeuroscienceCommunicationDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Juvenile play experiences promote behavioral flexibility in rats. If other early positive experiences, such as tactile stimulation, are given prior to exposure to psychostimulants, the behavioral response to the drug is attenuated. The objective of the present study was to determine if the experience of juvenile play behavior would attenuate the response to nicotine. Two experiments were conducted: (1) behavioral sensitization to nicotine exposure, and (2) voluntary consumption of nicotine. For both experiments, rats were reared either with three same-sex peers (play group) or one adult (no play group) during their juvenile period. Then, as adults, half of each group was exposed to repeated injections of nicotine and the other half to saline. Prior play experience had no effect on behavioral sensitization or on voluntary consumption of nicotine. It remains to be determined whether juvenile experience with play influences the rewarding properties of nicotine in social contexts as adults.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207