Play partner preferences among groups of unfamiliar juvenile male rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like many mammals, as juveniles, rats engage in play fighting, which in the laboratory is typically studied in dyads, and consequently, it is the researcher who determines a rat's play partner. In real-life conditions, a rat would have many partners with whom to play. In a previous study, we found that rats do prefer to play with some individuals more than others, and surprisingly, when given the choice, unfamiliar partners are preferred to familiar ones. In this study, we assessed partner choice when all the available partners are strangers. Eight groups of six unfamiliar juvenile male rats were observed for 10 min play trials. One of the six in each group was selected as the 'focal' rat and his play towards, and received by, the others were scored. Social networks revealed that five of the eight groups formed preferences, with preferred partners also engaging in more play with the focal rat. The mechanism by which these preferences were formed remains to be determined, but it seems that there are individual differences, potentially in the amount and style of play, that allow an individual to select the most suitable partner from a group of strangers.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".