MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2487705059 · doi:10.1385/0-89603-217-5:233

Self -Administration of Psychomotor Stimulants Using Progressive Ratio Schedules of Reinforcement

2003· book-chapter· en· W2487705059 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2003
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsReinforcementPsychomotor learningSelf-administrationDrug administrationPsychologyAdministration (probate law)PharmacologyDrugMedicineNeuroscienceSocial psychologyPolitical scienceCognitionLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the pioneering work of Weeks (1961,1962) and others (Thompson and Schuster, 1964; Collins and Weeks, 1965; Deneau et al., 1969; Yanagita and Takahashi, 1973), which showed that laboratory animals would voluntarily ingest psychoactive drugs, an enormous field of research has developed that uses “self-administration” techniques to study drug reinforcement. This chapter deals with some of the methods employed in self-administration studies involving rats, with special emphasis placed on the schedules of reinforcement that govern drug delivery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.369
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.020 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it