排序方式： 共有5条查询结果，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1
1.
3.
A 2 × 2 factorial experiment was conducted in a licking-suppression situation to test if a rat could count the number of shocks given in a 5-min session under signaled and unsignaled shock conditions. Groups F received three .7-sec grid shocks per session throughout 80 sessions, whereas Groups V received, on any day, one, two, three, four, or five shocks, with a mean of three shocks. The rats’ counting ability was assessed in terms of the post-third-shock acceleration of licking. The results of this measure were compared between Groups F and Groups V on test days in which both groups received three shocks with the identical shock sequence. There was no evidence that rats could count under either signaled or unsignaled shock conditions. The basal rate of licking was less in groups run under the unsignaled shock condition than under the signaled shock condition. The effect of fixed/variable shock frequency upon basal rate of licking was not significant. The results are discussed with reference to the optimal shock density view of Davis and Memmott (1982). 相似文献
4.
To sustain economic growth, countries have to manage systems in order to create technological innovation. To meet this goal, they are developing policies that organically connect companies, national laboratories, and universities into innovation networks. However, the whole structures of these connections have been little investigated because of the difficulty of obtaining such data.We use Japanese patent data and create a network of jointly applying organizations. This network can be considered as one representation of an innovation network because patents are seeds of innovation and joint applications are strong evidence of connections between organizations. We investigated the structure of the network, especially whether or not the degree distribution follows a power law. After that, we also propose a model that generates the actual network, not only degree distribution, but also link distance distribution. 相似文献
5.
文章认为,“定＋（所＋动）”不能准确地反映“名＋所＋动”的结构关系;名词不可以做“所＋动”的定语,“所＋动”亦不可以独立为“所”字词组,更不可以为名词所修饰。“名＋所＋动”应是一个主谓结构加入“所”字的“主＋所＋谓（动）”式的“所”字词组;“主＋所＋谓（动）”是先秦书面语中“所”字词组的两种基本结构之一。 相似文献
1