Conditioned nausea in rats: Assessment by conditioned disgust reactions, rather than conditioned taste avoidance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The terms conditioned taste avoidance and conditioned taste aversion are often used interchangeably in the literature; however, considerable evidence indicates that they may represent different processes. Conditioned taste avoidance is measured by the amount that a rat drinks in a consumption test that includes both appetitive phases and consummatory phases of responding. However, conditioned taste aversion is more directly assessed using the taste reactivity (TR) test that includes only the consummatory phase of responding. Rats display a conditioned taste aversion as conditioned disgust reactions (gapes, chin rubs, and paw treads) during an intraoral infusion of a nausea-paired flavored solution. Only treatments that produce nausea produce conditioned disgust reactions, but even rewarding drugs produce conditioned taste avoidance. Furthermore, treatments that alleviate nausea prevent the establishment and the expression of conditioned disgust reactions, but they do not necessarily modify conditioned taste avoidance. Considerable evidence exists indicating that these two measures can be independent of one another. The potential of a compound to produce conditioned disgust reactions is a reflection of its nausea-inducing properties. Taste avoidance may be motivated by conditioned fear rather than conditioned nausea, but conditioned disgust is motivated by conditioned nausea.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".