Transition from moderate to excessive wheel running in rats: A function of access length?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In rats, long daily wheel access produces an escalation to excessive levels of running while short daily access results in low stable levels of running. paralleling patterns of cocaine- taking (Lattanzio et al., 2000). Experiment I explored the effects of previous running experience (Phase l) on fixture running and feeding (Phase ll). Rats with 24 h daily access in Phase I escalated wheel running to a plateau of about 7000 wheel turns per day, while rats with 2 h daily access ran at low levels (about I000 wheel turns over the final 8 days of Phase l). The 2 h group did not run the maximum possible. but instead ran approximately one half of the maximum two hour running in the 24 h group. replicating recent findings. Rats moved from 24 h to 2 h access dropped immediately to the usual running level seen with short access. Their subsequent gradual decrease over Phase ll paralleled Ahmed and Koob's (1999) finding that elevated cocaine use gradually subsides in animals switched from long to short cocaine access. Animals shifted from short to long daily running immediately increased to high levels of running, suggesting that wheel running reward is more salient in these animals. Running plateaus were lower in rats shifted from 0 h to 24 h access. Feeding suppressions were evident in rats increased to long wheel access. Due to the strong circadian pattern of wheel running, Experiment 2 compared running in rats given short wheel access during the light and dark part of the cycle. Running in night-access rats increased steadily over days while the day-access rats’ running remained stable and low. Feeding was suppressed in the night access group only. As with cocaine self-administration, the reinforcing properties of wheel running may have a circadian component. Parallels between wheel running and drug-taking behaviours provide support for the use of wheel running as an animal model of addiction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".