Two paradigms of research and their influence on the study of animal behaviour
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Taxonomist Roy Crowson identified a fundamental difference among sciences. What he called “natural history” is exemplified by classical biology; it begins by observing, describing and classifying phenomena in the real world, then seeks patterns and concepts that help to synthesize and explain the observations, and proceeds to measurement and experimentation grounded in that framework. What he called “natural philosophy” is exemplified by classical physics; it postulates fundamental principles or concepts that are thought to apply universally, and the research proceeds more directly to measurement and experimentation directed at these principles or concepts. The study of animal behaviour has been influenced by both paradigms. The early ethologists (and now many zoologists) observed, described and classified the natural behaviour of various species and developed explanatory models based on the observations. Behavioural psychologists, in contrast, tended to focus on learning and motivation, sought laws or postulated constructs that were thought to apply universally, and then used simple measurements of artificial actions, usually with laboratory rodents, to develop laws or test theories. Both paradigms have been applied to the study of social behaviour and affective states, and have led to very different methods. Following the natural history paradigm, scientists have observed, described and classified how individuals interact with each other, how free-living groups of animals are organized, and have looked for evidence of affective states underlying the behaviour; they then developed concepts (facultative siblicide, matriarchy, separation distress) and tested hypotheses that helped make sense of the observations. Following the natural philosophy paradigm, other scientists postulated general concepts or constructs (aggression, dominance, emotionality) that were presumed to apply universally, and then used simple, often contrived, measurements to better understand them. The influence of the paradigms can be seen in applied studies of animal welfare and in the use of “animal models” of human mental and emotional conditions. I argue that scientists need to decide critically which paradigm to follow at a given point in their research, paying particular attention to (1) whether the measurement methods are valid, especially when they were not designed based on the natural behaviour of the species, (2) whether the concepts invoked are the most useful for the issue at hand, and (3) whether and when the concepts and findings can truly be generalized across species. • The study of animal behaviour has been influenced by two main paradigms. • One grounds concepts and theories in description and classification of behaviour. • The other proceeds more directly to measurement of existing high-level constructs. • The paradigms profoundly influence research methods and topics. • They also influence the validity, usefulness and generalizability of the research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,051 | 0,051 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,104 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,020 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,020 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».