Juvenile male rats form preferences based on strain when playing in groups but not in pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like many young mammals, juvenile rats engage in rough-and-tumble play. Play occurs naturally both in wild and laboratory rats, making it a suitable, ethologically relevant behavior to investigate. In the laboratory, rats are typically housed and tested in dyads, despite living in large colonies in the wild. Consequently, when tested in the lab, rats do not have a choice of partners and are instead paired with whomever the researcher selects. Given that both the amount and style of play rats engage in varies considerably depending on the strain of rat being studied, we tested whether rats select play partners based on strain. To do so, juvenile male Long Evans (LE) focal rats (n = 8) were subjected to three play contexts: (1) group play; (2) dyadic play; and (3) social conditioned place preference. During group play, the LE subject rats were given the choice to play with an LE, a Sprague Dawley (SD), or Fischer 344 rat (F344), simultaneously. During dyadic play, focal rats played one-on-one with an LE, SD, or F344 partner. Finally, the rats were conditioned to a context and a social stimulus, with the context either being paired with an LE (preferred stimulus) or F344 (unpreferred stimulus) partner. We found that, when given a choice in a group setting, LE focal rats prefer to play with same-strain partners over both SD and F344 partners. However, when playing under dyadic conditions (i.e., with an assigned partner), LE rats played with each strain equally. Finally, in the socially conditioned place preference test, we found that the focal rats formed preferences for a particular enclosure, but not for the strain. Together, these results suggest that when given a choice, LE rats prefer to play with their own strain, but when they do not have a choice, any strain will do. Given that the testing paradigm can greatly influence the results obtained and the conclusions drawn, our findings highlight the need to consider the research question(s) being asked when determining the most appropriate paradigms to employ.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".