Nocturnal Activity in a Diurnal Rodent (Arvicanthis Niloticus): The Importance of Masking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that day-active Nile grass rats, Arvicanthis niloticus, increase the amount of activity in the night relative to that in the day when provided with running wheels. This was confirmed in the present study. Animals without a wheel displayed 69.0% of their general activity in the L phase of a 12:12 h light-dark cycle; animals provided with wheels had only 48.6% of their wheel revolutions in the light. The contribution of direct (masking) responses to light to the increased nocturnality of animals with wheels was examined in two experiments. In experiment 1, masking was tested by exposing the animals to repeated cycles of 30 min of entraining light and 30 min of a different, usually dimmer light, during the L phase of a 12:12 h light-dark cycle. For animals with wheels, there was more running during the 30-min pulses of dim light or darkness than during the 30-min periods of entraining light. In contrast, for animals without wheels, there was more general activity during the 30-min periods of entraining light than during the 30-min pulses of dim light or darkness. In experiment 2, the animals were first exposed to a 12:12 h light-dark cycle and then put on a 1:10:1:12 h LDLD skeleton photoperiod. Animals with wheels increased their running during the subjective day of the skeleton photoperiod compared to that in the actual day of the 12:12 h light-dark cycle. Animals without wheels showed similar levels of general activity during the subjective day of the skeleton photoperiod and the actual day of the 12:12 h cycle. These experiments demonstrate that when Nile rats have running wheels, their increased nocturnal activity is associated with an increased suppression of locomotion in direct response to light. It is possible that changes in masking responses to light may be an essential and integral component of switching between diurnal and nocturnal activity profiles.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".