Similar development of cued and learned home bases in control and hippocampal‐damaged rats in an open field exploratory task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial behavior was examined in control rats and rats with neurotoxic-induced damage of the hippocampus in an open field "exploratory" task. In Experiment 1, rats were placed on a large circular table for 30 min for four consecutive days with a short wall adjacent to the table and a large black box near the edge of the table diametrically opposite to the wall. On the fifth day, rats were given a probe test during which both cues were removed. Over the training exposures both control and hippocampal-damaged rats formed "home bases," operationally defined as places where the rats preferentially stopped and spent time, near the cues. When the cues were removed on the probe day, both groups visited, stopped near, and spent time at places adjacent to the cues' previous location. In Experiment 2, rats were given a similar training protocol, but only a single cue was used, which was a small box placed directly on the table that did not block visibility of the entire room. On the fifth day, the box was moved to the other end of the table. Despite the presence of a cued home base, control and hippocampal-damaged rats remembered the original location of the home base. The results are discussed in relation to the comparative task demands of formal and informal test procedures and with respect to their relevance to understanding the neural basis of spatial behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".