Effects of preweaning exposure to novel maternal odors on maternal responsiveness and selectivity in adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effects of odor exposure in the nest on the offspring's subsequent adult responsivity to pups scented with the same odor or a different odor. It was hypothesized that animals receiving exposure to the odor in the nest would be more maternally responsive to pups scented with the (same) exposed odor than to unscented (water-scented) pups. In the first part of the study (Part A), Sprague-Dawley female rat pups (days 1-18 of age) either received exposure to an artificial lemon odor or to the natural (water) odor in the nest. In the second part of the study (Part B), rat pups were exposed daily to lemon or neutral odorants in an incubator at a distance from the mother and the nest. On day 21, animals received odor preference tests for lemon versus neutral pine bedding. On day 60, animals were mated and their pups were removed at 15-min intervals at the time of parturition. Animals were then tested for maternal behavior to foster pups on day 1 or 7 after parturition. Foster pups were scented either with the lemon odor or with water (unscented). Early exposure to lemon in the nest context enhanced animals' attraction to the lemon odor in juvenile tests. In adult maternal tests, exposure to odor on the mother and in the nest had two effects. It increased the latency for animals to express maternal behavior; however, once mothers expressed maternal behavior, they spent more time licking and crouching over pups scented with the same odorant to which they had been exposed earlier on their own mothers. Simple exposure to the lemon odorant out of context of the nest had no effect on adult maternal latencies or behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".