A protocol for investigating long-term social discrimination memory: Evidence in female and male Long Evans rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social discrimination, the investigation of a novel peer more so than a familiar peer, is used as a measure of social memory. There is much less research on long-term social memory than short-term social memory, and no long-term social memory research in female rats. The majority of long-term social discrimination research has relied on long familiarization session of an hour or more and involved juveniles as the stimulus peers. Here we show that a 30-minute familiarization session is sufficient to produce social discrimination 24 h later in both male and female rats and allows for measurement of social approach. Other methodological considerations are described, such as: that age- and sex-matched stimulus peers can be used across a wider range of ages than the use of juveniles; evidence that a familiar peer in a novel location attenuates social discrimination; that the first 10 minutes of the social approach reliably shows a preference for the social peer over an object whereas the 30-minute session does not; and that 10-minute discrimination sessions are preferable to 5-minute sessions. The research satisfies the goal of obtaining an efficient procedure to investigate both the possibility of enhancing or diminishing social approach and social memory with experimental manipulations in both sexes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".