Development of “Anchoring” in the Play Fighting of Rats: Evidence for an Adaptive Age-Reversal in the Juvenile Phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During play fighting, rats often assume a pinning configuration, where one animal stands over its supine partner. The on-top partner can stand on the ground or on its supine partner with its hind paws. When standing on the ground, the rat is more stable and is better able to respond to its partner’s actions. The frequency of this more stable pattern of standing during pinning (called anchoring) is higher following puberty than during the juvenile phase. Two hypotheses explaining this developmental change in anchoring were tested. The first hypothesis maintains that the lower level of anchoring in juvenile rats reflects an immature sensorimotor capability. The second hypothesis suggests that, since rats are more playful as juveniles, such heightened levels of play may interfere with movements otherwise used to maintain the stable anchored position at this age. Neither hypothesis was supported: infants have similar anchoring levels to postpubertal rats, and juveniles have a relatively low level of anchoring irrespective of how frequently they play fight. Therefore, the lower level of anchoring in the juvenile phase appears to be a developmental peculiarity of this age. These findings support the view that play fighting in the juvenile phase may be organized in a manner to increase the occurrence of the experiences that are developmentally beneficial in this activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".