The Goldilocks Principle: Balancing Familiarity and Novelty in the Selection of Play Partners in Groups of Juvenile Male Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like many mammals, rats frequently engage in play fighting as juveniles, an activity that influences the development of socio-cognitive skills. Most studies that assess play are based on staged dyadic encounters, implying that some average quantity and quality of play are sufficient to produce these developmental effects. However, there are individual differences, with some rats not only preferring to play more, but also to have more physical contact than others. Given that rats have individual differences in play, it raises the possibility that rats might express these preferences when playing in groups. To determine whether rats form partner preferences, trials were conducted in which a focal rat was given the opportunity to play with three partners of varying familiarity. One partner was a cage mate, another was housed on the other side of a transparent and perforated divider and so familiar, but not a prior play partner, and the third was a stranger from another cage. A total of 36 focal rats, between 30-36 days of age, were tested and video recorded in 20-minute trials following 2.5 h of social isolation. Focal rats expressed a preference for neighbors over both strangers and cage mates, indicating that balancing between familiarity and novelty influences social play partner preferences. Mechanisms by which this preference might have been established, such as dominance relationships, weight differences, and congruency of play style, were investigated, but none were correlated with the preferences expressed. This group dynamics perspective provides a novel approach to studying play, and more generally, provides insights into social exploration and decision-making.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".