The enigma of conditioned taste aversion learning: stimulus properties of 2-phenylethylamine derivatives.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functional aversive stimulus properties of several IP doses of (+/-)-amphetamine (1.25-10 mg.kg-1), 2-phenylethylamine (PEA, 2.5-10 mg.kg-1, following inhibition of monoamine oxidase with pargyline 50 mg.kg-1) and phenylethanolamine (6.25-50 mg.kg-1) were measured with the conditioned taste aversion (CTA) paradigm. A two-bottle choice procedure was used, water vs. 0.1 % saccharin with one conditioning trial and three retention trials. (+/-)-Amphetamine and phenylethanolamine induced a significant conditioned taste aversion but PEA did not. (+/-)-Amphetamine and PEA increased spontaneous locomotor activity but phenylethanolamine had no effects on this measure. Measurement of whole brain levels of these drugs revealed that the peak brain elevation of PEA occurred at approximately 10 min whereas the peak elevations of (+/-)-amphetamine and phenylethanolamine occurred at approximately 20 min. The present failure of PEA to elicit conditioned taste aversion learning is consistent with previous reports for this compound. The differential functional aversive stimulus effects of these three compounds are surprising since they exhibit similar discriminative stimulus properties and both (+/-)-amphetamine and PEA are self-administered by laboratory animals. The present data suggest that time to maximal brain concentrations following peripheral injection may be a determinant of the aversive stimulus properties of PEA derivatives.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".