Locomotor activity in the Namaqua rock mouse (<i>Micaelamys</i><i> namaquensis</i>): entrainment by light manipulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The locomotor activity rhythms of wild-caught Namaqua rock mice (Micaelamys namaquensis (A. Smith, 1834)) were examined under four light-cycle regimes to quantitatively describe the daily expression of locomotor activity and to study the innate relationship between activity and the light–dark cycle. Activity was always significantly higher at night than during the day; we note four trends. (1) The LD1 light cycle (12 h light : 12 h dark) established a distinct light-entrained and strongly nocturnal activity rhythm (99.11% nocturnal activity). The activity onset was prompt (zeitgeber time (ZT) 12.2 ± 0.04) and activity continued without any prominent peaks or extended times of rest until the offset of activity at ZT 23.73 ± 0.08. (2) Evidence for the internal maintenance of locomotor activity was obtained from the constant dark cycle (DD) in which locomotor activity free ran (mean τ = 23.89 h) and 77.58% of the activity was expressed during the subjective night. (3) During re-entrainment (LD2; 12 h light : 12 h dark), a nocturnal activity rhythm was re-established (98.65% nocturnal activity). (4) The inversion of the light cycle (DL; 12 h dark : 12 h light) evoked a shift in activity that again revealed dark-induced locomotor activity (95.69% nocturnal activity). Females were consistently more active than males in all of the light cycles, but only under the DD and LD2 cycles were females significantly more active than males. Although this species is considered nocturnal from field observations, information regarding its daily expression of activity and the role of light in its entrainment is lacking. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to report quantitatively on the species’ daily rhythm of activity and to investigate its relationship to the light–dark cycle.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".