REINFORCEMENT VALUE AND SUBSTITUTABILITY OF SUCROSE AND WHEEL RUNNING: IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTIVITY ANOREXIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choice between sucrose and wheel-running reinforcement was assessed in two experiments. In the first experiment, ten male Wistar rats were exposed to concurrent VI 30 s VI 30 s schedules of wheel-running and sucrose reinforcement. Sucrose concentration varied across concentrations of 2.5, 7.5, and 12.5%. As concentration increased, more behavior was allocated to sucrose and more reinforcements were obtained from that alternative. Allocation of behavior to wheel running decreased, but obtained wheel-running reinforcement did not change. Overall, the results suggested that food-deprived rats were sensitive to qualitative changes in food supply (sucrose concentration) while continuing to defend a level of physical activity (wheel running). In the second study, 15 female Long Evans rats were exposed to concurrent variable ratio schedules of sucrose and wheel-running, wheel-running and wheel-running, and sucrose and sucrose reinforcement. For each pair of reinforcers, substitutability was assessed by the effect of income-compensated price changes on consumption of the two reinforcers. Results showed that, as expected, sucrose substituted for sucrose and wheel running substituted for wheel running. Wheel running, however, did not substitute for sucrose; but sucrose partially substituted for wheel running. We address the implications of the interrelationships of sucrose and wheel running for an understanding of activity anorexia.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".