MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004637500 · doi:10.1037//0735-7044.114.1.158

Plasticity in the maternal circuit: Effects of experience and partum condition on brain astroctye number in female rats.

2000· article· en· W2004637500 on OpenAlexaff
Robert E. Featherstone, Alison Fleming, Gwen O. Ivy

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlial fibrillary acidic proteinAmygdalaHypothalamusHabenulaEndocrinologyNeuroplasticityInternal medicinePreoptic areaCentral nervous systemPsychologyNeuroscienceBiologyDevelopmental psychologyImmunohistochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Female rats that have received a maternal experience undergo enhanced c-fos expression in a number of brain sites when reexposed to pups. The present 2 studies examined changes in the expression of another brain protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), which is a major unit of the astrocytic cytoskeleton. In both experiments, primiparous and multiparous female rats were given varying amounts of postpartum contact with pups and overdosed after varying intervals, with no pups. Brains were prepared for GFAP immunohistochemical analysis. In both studies, Day 5 postpartum multiparous subjects given additional postpartum contact with pups, when compared with pup-exposed primiparous subjects, were found to have significantly higher numbers of GFAP positive cells in the medial preoptic area of the hypothalamus, an area critical for the expression of maternal behavior, but not in control sites. In Experiment 2, an opposite effect of parity was found in the medial amygdala and habenula.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations68
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207