A two-platform task reveals a deficit in the ability of rats to return to the start location in the water maze.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of rats to return to the start location was examined with a 4-arm radial water maze. The task required rats to find 2 hidden platforms in sequence. Rats were released from 1 of 3 arms and there was a platform located in the fourth arm. Once a rat found this platform, a 2nd platform was raised in another location, which was either the start location, for 1 group, or another fixed location, for a control group. Across 3 experiments, all rats learned the location of the 1st fixed platform in 80 to 120 trials. However, rats had difficulty finding a 2nd platform if it was at the start location. Control groups revealed that rats could learn 2 platform locations and that the difficulty in learning to return to the start location did not seem to be attributable to its aversive nature. In separate groups, exposure to the start location was increased by starting the rats from an initially stable platform. Rats still did not readily learn to return to the start location. The authors suggest that start location, when varied, cannot readily be used to define the location of a hidden platform.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".