MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508626066 · doi:10.1080/14640749108401267

Contextual conditioning and reinstatement of extinguished instrumental responding

2007· article· en· W1508626066 on OpenAlexaff
A. G. Baker, Hannah Steinwald, Mark E. Bouton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConditioningExtinction (optical mineralogy)PsychologyReinforcementContext (archaeology)LeverAffect (linguistics)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyDiscriminative modelSocial psychologyCommunicationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In three experiments we studied the relationship between contextual conditioning and the reinstatement of extinguished lever pressing that occurs when noncontingent food is introduced following extinction. In all three experiments the non-contingent food was presented off-baseline (with the response levers not present). On subsequent tests, with the response levers present, animals that had been exposed to food showed more reinstatement of lever pressing than control animals. This finding rules out alternative mechanisms for the reinstated responding that rely on the interaction of non-contingent food and responding, such as superstitious reinforcement or the discriminative after-effects of food. In addition, in each experiment we demonstrated that manipulations known to affect contextual conditioning (signalling the food in Experiment 1, context extinction in Experiment 2, and switching contexts in Experiment 3) reduced the reinstatement. These results are consistent with the claim that contextual condit...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations86
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section BSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207