How domestication modulates play behavior: A comparative analysis between wild rats and a laboratory strain of Rattus norvegicus.
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
Laboratory rats have been widely used to study the development and neural underpinnings of play behavior. However, it is not known whether domestic rats play in the same way and at the same frequency as their wild counterparts. In this study, the play of juvenile rats from a colony of wild rats maintained in captivity was compared to that of a strain of domesticated rats (e.g., Long Evans hooded). Three predictions were tested. First, it was predicted that wild rats would incorporate more agonistic behavior in their play. This was not found, as in all cases, both the wild and the laboratory rats attacked and defended the nape during play, a nonagonistic body target. Second, because play is typically more frequent in domesticated animals than their wild progenitors, it was predicted that the wild rats should play less than the laboratory rats. This was found to be the case. Third, because wild animals tend to be less tolerant of proximity by conspecifics and tend to be more agile in their movements, it was predicted that there would be less contact between wild pair mates. This was found to be the case; data show that the play of laboratory rats involves the same target (i.e., the nape of the neck) and tactics of defense as those used by wild rats. However, the laboratory rats initiated playful attacks more frequently, and were more likely to use tactics that promoted bodily contact. These similarities and differences need to be considered when using laboratory animals as models for play in general.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it