Circadian food anticipatory activity: Entrainment limits and scalar properties re-examined.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rats can anticipate a daily feeding time. This has been interpreted as a rhythm controlled by food-entrainable circadian oscillators, because the rhythm persists during several cycles of total food deprivation and fails to track mealtimes if the feeding schedule deviates substantially from 24. These and other properties distinguish anticipation of daily meals from anticipation of food rewards provided at intervals in the seconds-to-minutes range, suggesting distinct mechanisms. It has been reported that rats can anticipate meals at long, but noncircadian, intervals if they are required to work for food, and that anticipation of daily meals, expressed in operant behavior, shows the scalar property, a hallmark of timing intervals in the seconds-to-minutes range. These observations raise the possibility of a universal timing system, rather than unique mechanisms for circadian and noncircadian intervals. To test whether circadian constraints on daily meal timing depend on the measure of behavior, we re-examined formal properties of food anticipation using lever pressing and motion sensors. We observed robust anticipation in both measures to meals at 24-hr intervals but no anticipation of meals at 18-hr intervals in light-dark or constant light and no evidence that the duration of anticipation scales with the interval between lighting transitions and mealtime. We are therefore unable to confirm reports that operant measures can reveal timing at long, but noncircadian, intervals. If timing processes exist that do permit anticipation of events at long, but noncircadian, intervals, the conditions under which these can be revealed are evidently highly constrained.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".