Conditioning across the duration of a backward conditioned stimulus.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five conditioned suppression experiments examined the extent to which an appetitively motivated lever-press response can be punished by different components of a backward conditioned stimulus (CS). Using a 0-s unconditioned stimulus (US)-CS interval, Experiments 1 and 2 showed that the initial 3 s of a normally 30-s backward CS served as a more effective punisher than the CS as a whole. Experiment 3 found no such effect if the US-CS interval were 3 s rather than 0 s. Experiments 4A and 4B found that if the US-CS interval were 0 s, the initial part of the backward CS acquired excitatory properties although the CS as a whole passed a summation test for conditioned inhibition. By contrast, the 3-s US-CS interval supported inhibitory conditioning across the whole duration of the backward CS. Taken together, these findings support a modified version of Wagner's sometimes opponent process model, which suggests that different components of a backward CS become either excitatory or inhibitory depending on the components' temporal proximity to the US.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".