MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026112465 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.117.6.1353

Impaired Performance of Fornix-Transected Rats on a Distal, but Not on a Proximal, Version of the Radial-Arm Maze Cue Task.

2003· article· en· W2026112465 on OpenAlexaff
Carol Hudon, François Y. Doré, Sonia Goulet

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFornixHippocampusPsychologyCholinergicNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fornix-transected and sham-operated rats were trained on radial maze cue tasks in which the relative positions of the cues were either fixed (F condition) or varied (V condition) across trials. Proximal and distal visual stimuli were used in 2 different experiments. With proximal stimuli, fornix-transected rats were transiently impaired in the V condition and performed as well as controls in the F condition. However, using extramaze stimuli, fornix-transected rats were severely impaired in the V condition but performed normally in the F condition. According to histological analyses, performance on these cue tasks varied along with the extent of cholinergic depletion in the hippocampus. At the behavioral level, the location and stability of stimuli's relative positions seemed to have influenced rats' performance.

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 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 categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207