The rough-and-tumble play of rats as a natural behavior suitable for studying the social brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
social play, rats, social dynamics, social skills, individual di erences Play fighting, the most commonly reported form of social play, involves competition to gain an advantage First, it is highly pleasurable and associated with a positive affective state Second, the competition is moderated by cooperation, ensuring that the interactions have a degree of reciprocity or turn taking between partners (Palagi et al., 2016a). That is, the player with the advantage may voluntarily relinquish it, thus allowing a role reversal to occur, with the original defender gaining the opportunity to become the attacker (Pellis and Pellis, 2017). Thus, although actions performed during play fighting can be accurately described as involving attack, defense, and counterattack, the context of their use should not be confused with that of aggression. For this reason, we will refer to this kind of play as rough-and-tumble play (RTP), to highlight the cooperative aspect of these interactions. Nonetheless, competition during RTP can create ambiguity as to whether a partner may be taking unfair advantage of the situation, with effective communication being important to avoid the risk of escalating to aggression or to partners being ostracized if they play too roughly (Palagi et al., 2016b). Creating and resolving ambiguity, which requires balancing competition and cooperation, also provides a vehicle by which juveniles and adolescents can train socio-cognitive skills
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".