Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New features of actual choice behavior and effortful information processing in rats were demonstrated in an eight-arm radial maze through modifications of a matching-to-sample task. Two attempts were allowed for a squad of hooded Sprague-Dawley rats (n=7) for finding a reward in a testing phase of the task. The results showed flexibility and sooner learning to matching rule on the second testing attempt that was only later followed by an improvement of choice accuracy on the first attempt. "Hidden learning" on the second attempt could reflect memories and behavioral strategy, which were present, but not expressed on the first choice. The hypothesis was advanced that learning expressed on the second attempt reflects encoding of a matching rule, whereas improvement on the first choice reflects changes in the rank of acquired memories and behavioral strategy. A second experiment on the same squad of rats tested the ability of trained animals to rank already acquired memories. Following the introduction of the second sample to the study phase of the task, the rats learned to prefer to match the first sample in the testing phase, rearranging ranks of stored memories under the internal control of win-stay strategy. Alternative explanations of interference, trace decay and ranking were compared in order to account for the present results.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it