The Development of Strain Typical Defensive Patterns in the Play Fighting of Laboratory Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During play fighting, rats attack and defend the nape, which if contacted is nuzzled with the snout. While all strains of rats can use all defensive tactics to protect the nape, there are strain-typical preferences for using particular tactics This study tests two hypotheses for this strain difference: (1) that each strain has strain-specific thresholds for each tactic, or (2) that each strain attacks differently which leads to strain differences in which defense tactics are used. Juvenile Long-Evans and Sprague-Dawley males were tested with both unfamiliar (experiment 1) and familiar (experiment 2) same-strain and different-strain partners. Experiment two was conducted to determine if familiarity with a different strain might allow rats to modify their strain-typical pattern of play. If hypothesis (1) were true, they would maintain strain-typical defense patterns irrespective of partner strain, whereas for (2) it would vary with partner strain. Hypothesis (1) was supported in the first experiment; all the rats maintained their strain-typical patterns regardless of the partner’s strain. However, the second experiment supported neither hypothesis, as each animal displayed strain-divergent behavior when playing with partners of a different strain as well as with partners of the same strain. Given that in the second experiment subjects were reared in mixed-strain groups, it is possible that, during the early juvenile period, animals are susceptible to discordant social experiences
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".