Selective impairment of fornix‐transected rats on a new nonspatial, odor‐guided task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present experiment, sham-operated (SH) and fornix-transected (FX) rats were trained on a new nonspatial, odor-guided task. On each session, eight odor pairs were presented twice. On the first occurrence of a pair, rats were reinforced for pushing the container (go response) in which the olfactory stimuli were placed. On the second occurrence, they were not reinforced and had to refrain from responding (no-go response) to be scored as success. Rats were first trained to criterion on odor pairs made of replicates of the same odor (S pairs). Then they were trained to criterion on pairs made of different odors, each member of the pair overlapping with that of another pair (O pairs) and finally, on pairs of different odors with no overlap (NO pairs). The results showed that the number of sessions to reach criterion was significantly higher in FX than in SH rats during training on O pairs, but not during training on S or on NO pairs. These findings are consistent with the configural (Rudy and Sutherland, 1995: Hippocampus 5:375-389) or relational (Eichenbaum et al., 1994: Behav Brain Sci 17:449-518) account of the hippocampal memory function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".