MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057460862 · doi:10.1037/a0015773

Rats’ orientation is more important than start point location for successful place learning.

2010· article· en· W2057460862 on OpenAlexafffund
Darlene M. Skinner, Murray R. Horne, Kate E. A. Murphy, Gerard M. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOrientation (vector space)Heading (navigation)Point (geometry)PsychologyT-mazeCommunicationCognitive psychologyAudiologyNeuroscienceGeometryMathematicsGeodesyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rats were trained to locate food on a plus maze that was moved between 2 locations. The food was in a fixed location relative to room cues but the maze, and the animals' start point, were either translated (shifted to the left or right) or rotated (by 90 degrees or 45 degrees ) across trials. Rats started from the same or different places solved the problem if they headed in a direction different from the start point. Rats started from different places were impaired if they headed in the same direction, suggesting that orientation is more important than start point for successful performance. The same pattern of results was obtained when rats were trained inside a curtained enclosure, suggesting that orientation is not derived solely from a view of distal visual cues while on the maze. It appears that rats use their heading, or direction of movement, to guide their responses at a choice point.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior ProcessesSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207