VARYING WHEEL‐RUNNING REINFORCER DURATION WITHIN A SESSION: EFFECT ON THE REVOLUTION—POSTREINFORCEMENT PAUSE RELATION
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".