RESPONDING FOR SUCROSE AND WHEEL‐RUNNING REINFORCEMENT: EFFECTS OF SUCROSE CONCENTRATION AND WHEEL‐RUNNING REINFORCER DURATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six male albino rats were placed in running wheels and exposed to a fixed-interval 30-s schedule of lever pressing that produced either a drop of sucrose solution or the opportunity to run for a fixed duration as reinforcers. Each reinforcer type was signaled by a different stimulus. In Experiment 1, the duration of running was held constant at 15 s while the concentration of sucrose solution was varied across values of 0, 2.5. 5, 10, and 15%. As concentration decreased, postreinforcement pause duration increased and local rates decreased in the presence of the stimulus signaling sucrose. Consequently, the difference between responding in the presence of stimuli signaling wheel-running and sucrose reinforcers diminished, and at 2.5%, response functions for the two reinforcers were similar. In Experiment 2, the concentration of sucrose solution was held constant at 15% while the duration of the opportunity to run was first varied across values of 15, 45, and 90 s then subsequently across values of 5, 10, and 15 s. As run duration increased, postreinforcement pause duration in the presence of the wheel-running stimulus increased and local rates increased then decreased. In summary, inhibitory aftereffects of previous reinforcers occurred when both sucrose concentration and run duration varied; changes in responding were attributable to changes in the excitatory value of the stimuli signaling the two reinforcers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".