Pinning in the Play Fighting of Rats: A Comparative Perspective With Methodological Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During play fighting, rats attack and defend the nape and during the course of this competitive interaction, they may adopt a configuration in which one animal stands over its supine partner (i.e., pin). Because the pin configuration is typically frequent and relatively easy to identify, it has been widely used as a marker to detect the effects of experimental treatments. In the present study, the frequency of pinning during standardized, 10min trials in three strains of rats, Long Evans hooded (LE), Sprague-Dawley (SD) and wild (WWCPS), was compared. LE and SD had higher rates than WWCPS rats (#/min: 6.5, 5.5, 1.5, respectively). When adjusted for strain differences in the frequency of attacks, SD as well as WWCPS rats had lower rates of pinning compared to LE rats. Both SD and WWCPS rats were less likely to use tactics of defense that promote pinning. Moreover, while the majority of the pins achieved in LE rats arose from the defender actively rolling over onto its back, the majority of pins in WWCPS rats arose because one partner pushed the other onto its back. SD rats were intermediate in this regard. Finally, once they do adopt the pin configuration, SD rats are less likely to remain supine than LE and WWCPS rats. That is, both SD and WWCPS rats have significantly fewer pins than LE rats, but a different combination of factors account for this. These data highlight the need to use a battery of measures for ascertaining the effects of experimental manipulations on play. Some suggested guidelines are provided.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".