Development of play fighting in kindling‐prone (FAST) and kindling‐resistant (SLOW) rats: How does the retention of phenotypic juvenility affect the complexity of play?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rats selectively bred for susceptibility to amygdala kindling (FAST) have been shown to retain neural and behavioral features of the juvenile phase into adulthood. In contrast, rats selectively bred for resistance to amygdala kindling (SLOW) are neurobehaviorally more typically adult. The development of play fighting in male and female rats of both selected lines was studied. Given the apparent association of juvenility and play often noted in the literature for mammals in general, it was predicted that the FAST rats should be more playful and be more likely to retain the juvenile tactics of play that lead to more prolonged and complex patterns of social contact. As expected, FAST rats initiated more playful attacks and were more likely to defend against attacks than SLOW rats as both juveniles and adults. Unexpectedly, however, both selected lines exhibited patterns of defense that reduced the likelihood of complex and prolonged social contact. Importantly, the two selected lines did so by very different means. The FAST rats did so by avoiding contact whereas the SLOW rats did so by responding in an adult-typical manner that blocks contact. That is, the FAST rats exaggerated the changes typically occurring at puberty whereas the SLOW rats, at all ages, responded in a more adult manner. These data suggest that the different components of play fighting do not change uniformly with changes in the neurobehavioral underpinnings of juvenility.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".