The Development of Juvenile-Typical Patterns of Play Fighting in Juvenile Rats Does Not Depend on Peer-Peer Play Experience in the Peri-Weaning Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Play fighting in rats involves attack and defense of the nape. To protect the nape, rats use a variety of defensive tactics, with different strains having specific preferences. Targeting of the nape is established before weaning and defense matures over the course of the week preceding and the week proceeding weaning. Thus, it is possible that experience from engaging in immature forms of play is needed to consolidate the nape as the playful target and for the development of the juvenile-typical pattern of defense. Two experiments were conducted to evaluate this possibility. For the first experiment, male rats were reared over the week post-weaning in either pairs or alone, and their play tested with unfamiliar partners when juveniles (31-34 days). For the second experiment, during the week preceding weaning, male and female rats were placed into one of three conditions: (1) with the mother and no peers, (2) with same-sex siblings but no mother or (3) with both the mother and same-sex siblings. The subjects were tested in same-sex, same-condition pairs when juveniles (31-34 days). Rats from all conditions, in both experiments, attacked the nape during play fighting and developed the same juvenile-typical patterns of playful defense. This suggests that the experience of peer-peer play in the peri-weaning period is not necessary for the development of the attack and defense components of juvenile-typical play.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".