Domestication and diversification: A comparative analysis of the play fighting of the Brown Norway, Sprague-Dawley, and Wistar laboratory strains of (Rattus norvegicus).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory strains of rats are a commonly used subject to study play behavior. Recent research has shown that play in one laboratory strain of rat (e.g., Long-Evans hooded) differs in a number of ways from its wild counterparts. These findings suggest that domestication affects some aspects of play behavior. However, there are multiple strains of laboratory rats, which have been domesticated through different lineages all derived from wild rats and it cannot be assumed that all domestic strains are identical in their play. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the play behavior of three other strains of laboratory rats (e.g., Wistar, Sprague-Dawley, and Brown Norway). All strains were similar to each other as they all engaged in high frequencies of play, tolerated similar interanimal distances before initiating playful defense and displayed similar acrobatic capacities, suggesting domestication produces some common changes in play and other factors that influence play. However, strains differed significantly from one another in the use of tactics that promote bodily contact during play. Indeed, in this regard, some strains were more similar to wild rats than others, suggesting that some domestication-induced changes are either unique or more prominent in some laboratory strains than others. Such a mosaic pattern of transformation not only offers the possibility of using strain differences to characterize the genetic factors contributing to different facets of play, but also cautions researchers from making rat-general conclusions from studies on any one strain.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".