MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010274186 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.118.1.131

Reward and Aversive Stimuli Produce Similar Nonphotic Phase Shifts.

2004· article· en· W2010274186 on OpenAlex

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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Entrainment (biomusicology)Circadian rhythmNeurosciencePsychologyAversive StimulusArousalStimulationRhythmInternal medicineCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circadian rhythms in rodents respond to arousing, nonphotic stimuli that contribute to daily patterns of entrainment. To examine whether the motivational significance of a stimulus is important for eliciting nonphotic circadian phase shirts in Syrian hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus), the authors compared responses to a highly rewarding stimulus (lateral hypothalamic brain stimulation reward [BSR]) and a highly aversive stimulus (footshock). Animals were housed on a 14:10-hr light-dark cycle until test day, when they were given a 1-hr BSR session (trained animals) or a 1-mA electric footshock at 1 of 8 circadian times, and were maintained in constant dark thereafter. Both BSR pulses and footshock produced nonphotic phase response curves. These results support the hypothesis that arousal resulting from the motivational significance of a stimulus is a major factor in nonphotic phase shifts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.259 · 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