MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523679564 · doi:10.22330/001c.89852

Four More Reasons Why Ethology Matters: Tinbergen and the Human Sciences

2013· article· en· W1523679564 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Barrett, Gert Stulp

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Ethology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthologyReading (process)Perspective (graphical)EpistemologyHuman scienceCognitive scienceCitationSociologyPsychologyPhilosophyComputer scienceEcologyLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceBiologyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tinbergen’s paper on aims and methods in ethology is, quite rightly, a citation classic. Here, we would like to emphasize that, 50 years after its initial publication, it continues to offer fresh insights into study of ethology – and human ethology in particular – as well as offering a valuable historical perspective on the biology of behavior more generally. Everyone, we think, can benefit from (re)reading Tinbergen (1963).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman EthologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207