MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963661559 · doi:10.1037//0735-7044.114.2.442

Rats alternate on a dry-land but not swimming-pool (Morris task) place task: Implications for spatial processing.

2000· article· en· W1963661559 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Spatial learningDry landAlternation (linguistics)Morris water navigation taskPsychologyCognitive psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceCognitionMedicineBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groups of rats were rewarded with food for traveling from a start point to 2 different locations while their alternations in choice between those locations on 2 daily trials were recorded. In one experimental condition, the rats swam and received food once they climbed upon a platform that was hidden just below the surface of the water at the food location. In the other condition, the rats walked to reach the food. It was found that the rats did not alternate their choices between target locations when swimming but that they did alternate target choices when walking. Even experience in alternating when walking did not produce reliable alternation when swimming. It is proposed that rats treat escape (swimming) and search (walking) tasks in different ways, and this difference is discussed with respect to the possibility that different central processes may be used in the task solutions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.239 · 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