Short article: Rats learn to eat more to avoid hunger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several recent experiments have provided evidence that the ingestion of a distinctive food by rats can be a learnt instrumental act as well as an associatively conditioned reaction. In the previous work, maintenance food was withheld for shorter and longer durations on different days following access to the training food. Extra eating before the longer fast was interpreted as avoidance of hunger. This interpretation was based on the evidence showing that extra eating as a result of classical conditioning comes from pairing food stimuli with the presence of little or no hunger because of repletion with energy nutrients. The theory that the extra eating arose from a response-depletion contingency was tested in the present experiment by training rats on only a long fast or only a short fast. Greater increase in intake was seen before the longer fast. The results also replicated previously seen cycles of increase, decrease, and renewed increase in putative deficit-avoidant eating over about three trials, indicating that the extra eating reduces the response-reinforcing hunger and that the consequent part-extinction restores reinforcement. The shape of the learning curve was consistent with these cycles occurring from the start of training, further supporting the view that the increase in food intake before a long delay in refeeding is hunger-reinforced instrumental behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".