MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109137342 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1337

A natural genetic polymorphism affects retroactive interference in<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>

2010· article· en· W2109137342 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher J. Reaume, Marla B. Sokolowski, Frédéric Mery

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsForgettingDrosophila melanogasterRelevance (law)ForagingOrganismBiologyCognitive psychologyContext (archaeology)CognitionAlleleEvolutionary biologyPsychologyGeneticsEcologyGeneNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As environments change, animals update their internal representations of the external world. New information about the environment is learned and retained whereas outdated information is disregarded or forgotten. Retroactive interference (RI) occurs when the retrieval of previously learned information is less available owing to the acquisition of recently acquired information. Even though RI is thought to be a major cause of forgetting, its functional significance is still under debate. We find that natural allelic variants of the Drosophila melanogaster foraging gene known to affect rover and sitter behaviour differ in RI. More specifically, rovers who were previously shown to experience greater environmental heterogeneity while foraging display RI whereas sitters do not. Rover responses are biased towards more recent learning events. These results provide an ecological context to investigate the function of forgetting via RI and a suitable genetic model organism to address the evolutionary relevance of cognitive tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207