MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061013993 · doi:10.1080/02724990244000106

Latent Inhibition of US Signal Value

2003· article· en· W2061013993 on OpenAlexaff
Murray J. Goddard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConditioningLatent inhibitionUnconditioned stimulusClassical conditioningPelletPsychologyContext (archaeology)AudiologyChemistryMedicineBiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three experiments with rats examined the effects of preexposure to an unconditioned stimulus (US; a single food pellet) on the subsequent ability of that US to effectively signal the delivery of three food pellets during a US-US conditioning procedure. In Experiment 1, latent inhibition (LI) rats showed attenuated conditioning, compared to control (C) rats, when a single food pellet, delivered 10 minutes into a session, was followed by three additional pellets. In preexposure, one pellet had been delivered 10 minutes into each session (in group LI), or placed into the magazine at the beginning of each session (in group C). Experiment 2 showed that this effect was evident when the conditions of preexposure matched those of conditioning for group C, and Experiment 3 showed that the difference between groups LI and C was not a product of context conditioning, or latent inhibition to the noise of the feeder in group LI. Implications of these results for theories of latent inhibition are considered.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section BSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207