Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research into the effects of drugs on feeding has been guided by an interest in the neurochemical mechanisms involved in the control of food intake and by a desire to find safe, effective pharmacological treatments for feeding disorders such as obesity. Many experiments in the field have revealed that a multitude of compounds with widely different pharmacological actions can alter the food intake of laboratory animals. Although this undoubtedly reflects the complexity of the neurochemical control of feeding, it is likely that many of these drug effects result from general disturbances in behavior rather than from an action upon the neural systems involved in feeding. Often in such experiments the only data collected are the amounts of food consumed over brief time periods following acute drug treatment. This information is obviously important, but it is insufficient to allow any conclusions to be drawn about the specificity of action of the drug on feeding behavior. In the case of a drug-induced decrease in feeding, many possible explanations can be advanced to account for this result. Table 1 illustrates several such explanations, which can be divided into two categories: those concerned with nonspecific disruptions of behavior and those concerned with direct actions on feeding behavior. The task of the researcher interested in the effects of drugs on feeding is to decide between such alternative explanations. In many cases observation of drug-treated animals will reveal whether feeding is being disrupted by the occurrence of abnormal or stereotyped behaviors or by gross changes in locomotor activity. However, observational analysis alone will not in general permit a distinction to be made between, for example, drug-induced changes in the initiation, maintenance, or termination of feeding bouts and a change in the requirement for a particular macronutrient. Table 1 Potential Explanations for an Observed Decrease in Food Intake Induced by Drug Treatmenta a Nonspecific Actions Response competition from other normal behaviors, e.g., drinking, sleeping, and motor activity, that displace feeding Inability to perform the motor responses required for eating Disruption of the sequencing of behavior leading to the initiation of feeding Response competition from abnormal behavior, e.g., amphetamineinduced stereotypy Drug-induced malaise Deflection of attention to nonsalient aspects of the environment Specific actions Decreased requirement for calorles Alteration m the initiation, maintenance or termination of feeding bouts (perhaps reflecting changes in hunger, appetite, or satiety) Change in the circadian rhythm underlying feeding Decreased requirement for a particular nutrient, e.g., protein, carbohydrate, or fat Shift in preference for the sensory properties of foods, e.g., taste and texture, or reduction in incentive value of food a Based on Blundell and Latham (1982)
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.012 |
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".