Effects of alternative reinforcer and craving on the choice to smoke cigarettes in the laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined to what extent craving for cigarettes and the magnitude of an alternative monetary reinforcer were predictors of the choice to smoke in the human laboratory. Twelve non-treatment-seeking nicotine-dependent volunteers participated in a series of outpatient sessions during which they had repeated opportunities to select between three puffs of a cigarette and a variety of monetary alternatives ($0.50-3), responding under a progressive-ratio schedule. Level of cigarette craving was measured at baseline and between each choice opportunity. The probability of choosing a cigarette decreased significantly with the increase in the magnitude of the alternative reinforcer. Baseline level of craving did not significantly alter the probability of choosing a cigarette, but a craving component related to the anticipation of positive effects from smoking, assessed repeatedly between choice opportunities, was predictive of the choice to smoke. These results demonstrate that the cigarette puff self-administration procedure is sensitive to environmental manipulations and cigarette puff choice can be modified by the availability of an alternative reinforcer. This paradigm models the motivational component associated with choice to smoke and could be used to evaluate the effects of pharmacological and behavioral interventions to decrease cigarette smoking.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".