Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir—Conklin & Tiffany (2002) describe elegantly how behavioral results from studies of non-humans can be useful in developing new cue-exposure treatments. At several points in their article they equate implicitly or explicitly extinction in studies of non-humans with abstinence in drug abusers trying to stop. I believe the two are not equivalent (Hughes & Bickel 1997). The extinction procedure in non-humans involves typically either removing a lever used for drug self-administration or making lever presses no longer produce drug injections. Neither mimics the situation of a typical drug abuser trying to stop. Rather, the former is analogous to being in an in-patient ward and the latter to paying for and receiving placebos. Most drug abusers initiate abstinence either because a real or implied punishment will occur with drug use or because strong non-drug reinforcers are made contingent on not using drug. To mimic the former, non-human researchers could either suppress drug self-administration by intermittent punishment or by a stimulus paired with punishment. To mimic the latter, they could make food or other strong reinforcers contingent on progressively longer periods of no drug self-administration. Conklin and Tiffany argue that context determines the function of conditioning stimuli. If so, then how a conditioned stimuli functions is likely to be different with removal of a lever or with non-productive lever-pressing than with suppressed responding due to punishment or non-drug reinforcers. I believe results from non-human studies using the latter two paradigms may better generalize to the human condition. Since 1 January 2001, I have received honoraria, consulting fees or research grants from the following organizations that market tobacco cessation/prevention product/services/information or conduct tobacco-related litigation: Alden Corporation, Astra Pharmaceuticlas, American Council on Science and Health, American Society of Addiction Medicine, Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine, Edelman Public Relations, Glaxo-SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, Glaxo-Wellcome Pharmaceuticals, Healthwise, Krug Associates, National Cancer Institute, National Institute on Drug Abuse, New England College Health Association, Palladin Associates, Pharmacia, Shook Hardy and Bacon, Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, University Medical and Dental School of New Jersey, Walker Law Firm, Yale Medical School.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".