Investigating Fear in Rainbow Trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>) Using the Conditioned-Suppression Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trout learned the operant task of pendulum-pressing for a food-reward in a mean of 4.3 sessions lasting 1 hr. In a separate phase, fish also learned--through classical conditioning--to associate a neutral light cue with an aversive stimulus. When again allowed to pendulum-press for food, after aversive classical conditioning, there was a drop in the rate of responding. The mean rate dropped from 3.6-2.9 responses per min. Most important, when the light-stimulus was superimposed on a steady bout of pendulum-pressing, trout ceased to press the pendulum and did not resume activity until termination of the light-stimulus (mean number of responses during a 3-min interval immediately prior to light-stimulus = 14.3 vs. during 3-min light-stimulus = 0.1). Psychologists have used this decrease in operant responding, or "conditioned emotional response," as a tool to examine the psychological nature of this type of aversive conditioning. In this study, the fish demonstrated various results under this paradigm similar to those shown by "higher" nonhuman animals, therefore challenging the view of fish as unconscious, nonsentient animals.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".