Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Research increasingly shows great apes surpassing other nonhuman primates in their mentality, achieving abilities traditionally considered uniquely human. Importantly, the cognitive capacities that distinguish them include rudimentary symbolic processes, in the sense of processes that operate on the basis of mental images rather than direct sensory-motor phenomena. Although this view does not represent consensus among experts (e.g., Tomasello & Call 1997), many well-respected researchers now accept this interpretation of the empirical evidence (e.g., Byrne 1995; Langer & Killen 1998; Parker & McKinney 1999; Parker, Mitchell & Boccia 1994; Parker, Mitchell & Miles 1999; Russon, Bard & Parker 1996; Savage–Rumbaugh, Shanker & Taylor 1998; Whiten & Byrne 1991; Wrangham et al . 1994). If great apes are capable of symbolic cognitive processes, views of symbolism as having evolved within the human lineage are incorrect. Implications for understanding cognitive evolution within the primates are complex and important. First, neither the landmark significance of symbolism to cognition nor its importance in understanding the evolution of higher primate cognition is diminished by this revision. What is altered is timing. Symbolic cognition shifts from an achievement of the human lineage to a foundation for it. Second, reconstructions of the conditions leading to the evolution of symbolic processes remain important, but existing reconstructions lose much of their weight because they focus on conditions linked with the divergence of the human lineage. If symbolic processes are the joint province of humans and great apes, ancestral large hominoids are their probable evolutionary source.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".