Conditioned Taste Aversion is Not Disrupted in Rats Exposed to Weak, Complex Magnetic Fields during the CS–UCS Interval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
40 normal male Wistar rats were trained for 8 successive days to consume water ad libitum during once-daily 20-min. sessions. On the following day (training day) the rats were presented with a novel solution of 10% sucrose for 20 min. followed by a single exposure for 2 hr. to one of two weak (200 to 500 nanoTesla) complex magnetic fields or to sham-field conditions. The patterns of the two magnetic fields and the durations of their repeated presentations (interstimulus interval) were designed to be resonant with the intrinsic firing of hippocampal pyramidal and solitary neurons, respectively. Immediately after the applications of the fields one-half the number of rats were injected with lithium to evoke gastrointestinal malaise. Although on the test day, three days later, rats previously injected with the lithium exhibited the usual robust reduction in the consumption of sucrose compared to the training day, there were no statistically significant differences between field-exposed and sham-field groups for these ratios. We conclude that a 2-hr. exposure to weak magnetic fields designed to simulate the pattern of two structures likely involved with conditioned taste aversion between the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus did not affect this behavior.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".