VARYING WHEEL‐RUNNING REINFORCER DURATION WITHIN A SESSION: EFFECT ON THE REVOLUTION—POSTREINFORCEMENT PAUSE RELATION
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous investigations of wheel-running reinforcement that manipulated reinforcer duration across conditions showed a strong relation between wheel-running rate and average postreinforcement pause (PRP) duration. To determine if the basis of this relation across conditions was a local effect of fatigue or satiation, the correlation between revolutions run and the duration of the immediately following PRP was investigated under conditions in which reinforcer duration was either constant or variable within a session. Seven male Wistar rats pressed a lever on a fixed-interval 60-s reinforcement schedule with the opportunity to run for 60 s as the reinforcing consequence. In the constant-duration condition, the duration of the reinforcer was always 60 s. In the variable-duration condition, the duration of the reinforcer varied between 2 and 240 s with a mean of 60 s. Mean correlations between revolutions run and the next PRP duration for constant, variable, and constant conditions were -.07, .20, and -.07, respectively. Although the positive correlation in the variable-duration condition is consistent with an effect of momentary fatigue or satiation, little of the variance in PRP duration appears to be attributable to these factors.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it