MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990922754 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.117.3.621

Novel objects in a holeboard probe the role of the locus coerulus in curiosity: Support for two modes of attention in the rat.

2003· article· en· W1990922754 on OpenAlex
Atef Mansour, Doris M. Babstock, Jennifer H. Penney, Gerard M. Martin, John H. McLean, Carolyn W. Harley

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 · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus coeruleusIdazoxanTonic (physiology)PsychologyNeuroscienceDopamineNorepinephrineEndocrinologyInternal medicineAntagonistChemistryCentral nervous systemPrazosinMedicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Idazoxan, an alpha 2 adrenoceptor antagonist (2 mg/kg), enhanced novel object investigation in a holeboard in rats as previously reported (V. Devauges & S. J. Sara, 1990). Two weeks of 10 min/day in 37 degrees C water increased dopamine-beta-hydroxylase staining density in the locus coeruleus but did not enhance novel object investigation. In contrast to idazoxan, however, the warm water treatment increased rearing, center entries, and activity, a pattern previously described during tonic infusion of norepinephrine into the hippocampus. Correlations among dopamine-beta-hydroxylase measures and behavior reinforced these tonic norepinephrine/behavior associations. The behavioral effects across the idazoxan and warm water experiments support G. Aston-Jones et al.'s (1999) 2 modes of attention hypothesis for locus coeruleus function: Phasic locus coeruleus activity promotes focused attention; tonic locus coeruleus activity promotes scanning attention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.237 · 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