Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study will examine the rodent visual system by assessing whether they can discriminate between various biological motion point‐light displays. Pilot data suggests that rats can discriminate between a human walker point‐light display walking left and right. Therefore this study will investigate which kind of information rats use to differentiate biological motion; the overall shape of the moving body (conformational theory) versus the local movement of the feet (ballistic motion theory). First, we will train the rats to discriminate between human point‐light displays walking in opposite directions using a modified Morris water maze. Then we will observe their reactions to a backwards‐walking display. If the rats use shape as a visual cue for biological motion, they will swim towards the goal arm that corresponds to the direction the backwards walker is facing. However, if the rats use ballistic motion as a visual cue for biological motion, they will swim towards the goal arm that corresponds to the direction the backwards walker is moving. We hypothesize that rats use the ballistic motion of the feet as a cue for life detection. This is the first study to investigate whether rats can detect biological motion, and will contribute to the theory that animals have evolved an innate ability to quickly detect biological motion of vital importance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".