Stereotypic mice are aggressed by their cage-mates, and tend to be poor demonstrators in social learning tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stereotypic behaviours (SBs) are linked with behavioural inflexibility and resemble symptoms of autism, suggesting that stereotypic animals could have autistic-like social impairments. SBs are also common in caged mice. We therefore hypothesised relationships between stereotypic and social behaviours, predicting that highly stereotypic mice would give/receive more agonism and be less effective in social learning tasks. Experiment One used C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice in non-enriched or enriched housing (15 cages each); Experiment Two, more cages (six non-enriched, 44 enriched) plus a third strain (BALB/c). Across both experiments, enrichment reduced SB and agonism (aggression, plus ‘displacements’ where one mouse supplants another at a resource). These effects appeared related: housing effects on agonism became negligible when SB was statistically controlled for, and, at least in enriched cages, SB covaried with receiving aggression. In Experiment Three, 20 DBAs varying in SB from Experiment Two acted as demonstrators in a ‘social transmission of food preferences’ task. They were fed a novel flavour (shatavari powder), then each mingled with a familiar but flavour-naïve C57 observer. Observers were subsequently offered two novel flavours: shatavari or marjoram. Those spontaneously choosing more shatavari (n = 10) tended to have had less stereotypic demonstrators than the other ten observer mice. Overall, highly stereotypic mice thus received more agonism — an effect with obvious welfare implications that can be reduced with enrichment — and seemed potentially less effective at inducing flavour preferences in conspecifics. Such effects are consistent with social impairment, suggesting that reducing SB may perhaps enhance interactions between conspecifics.
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 | 0.001 | 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".