Are laterality effects present in novel object responses of calves?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many animals exhibit preferential viewing of fear-inducing stimuli with their left eyes, reflecting cerebral lateralisation in emotion processing. In novel object tests, often used to assess fear, spatial positioning of the objects relative to the animal can vary. This study aimed to investigate visual lateralisation in calves’ responses in novel object tests, evaluate its effectiveness as an indicator of fear, and examine how initial monocular presentation of fear-inducing stimuli impacts fear responses and their reliability. Thirty-six dairy calves underwent a novel object test at six weeks of age and a second at seven weeks of age using a different object, with behavioural responses towards the novel objects recorded. There was no correlation in latency to first contact with novel objects between tests. On average, proportion of time viewing novel objects with the left eye did not significantly differ from the right eye across the two tests, nor did it correlate with latency to first contact with novel objects. The probability of contact with novel objects and latency to first contact with novel objects did not differ based on initial eye with which novel objects were seen, although among calves that showed an avoidance response, they were less likely to have used the right eye for viewing than either the left eye or both eyes just before the locomotor response. Overall, fear responses in calves during repeated novel object tests were inconsistent, and this inconsistency was not clearly attributable to the random presentation of objects to different visual fields. This may suggest either a lack of cerebral lateralisation in fear processing at this age or that alternative methods may be needed to more accurately assess it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".