MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6939354562 · doi:10.60692/z4wnb-fmy64

Population variation alters aggression-associated oxytocin and vasopressin expressions in brains of Brandt's voles in field conditions

2021· article· en· W6939354562 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasopressinOxytocinPopulationNeuropeptideStressorArvicolinaeOxytocin receptorPopulation density

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Density-dependent change in aggressive behavior contributes to the population regulation of many small rodents, but the underlying neurological mechanisms have not been examined in field conditions. We hypothesized that crowding stress and aggression-associated oxytocin (OT) and arginine vasopressin (AVP) in specific regions of the brain may be closely related to aggressive behaviors and population changes of small rodents. We analyzed the association of OT and AVP expression, aggressive behavior, and population density of Brandt's voles in 24 large semi-natural enclosures (0.48 ha each) in Inner Mongolia grassland. We tested the effects of population density on the OT/AVP system and aggressive behavior by experimentally manipulating populations of Brandt's voles in the grassland enclosures. High density was positively and significantly associated with more aggressive behavior, and increased expression of mRNA and protein of AVP and its receptor, but decreased expression of mRNA and protein of OT and its receptor in specific brain regions of the voles. Our study suggests that changes in OT/AVP expression are likely a result of the increased psychosocial stress that these voles experience during overcrowding, and thus the OT/AVP system can be used as indicators of density-dependent stressors in Brandt's voles.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207