MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979072148 · doi:10.1159/000076782

Spatial Learning and Memory in Birds

2004· review· en· W1979072148 on OpenAlexaff
Susan D. Healy, T. Andrew Hurly

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyComparative cognitionCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyForagingSpatial cognitionAnimal learningImprinting (psychology)Spatial learningSpatial contextual awarenessCognitive mapNeuroscienceEcologyComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral ecologists, well versed in addressing functional aspects of behavior, are acknowledging more and more the attention they need also to pay to mechanistic processes. One of these is the role of cognition. Song learning and imprinting are familiar examples of behaviors for which cognition plays an important role, but attention is now turning to other behaviors and a wider diversity of species. We focus here on work that investigates the nature of spatial learning and memory in the context of behaviors such as foraging and food storing. We also briefly explore the difficulties of studying cognition in the field. The common thread to all of this work is the value of using psychological techniques as tools for assessing learning and memory abilities in order to address questions of interest to behavioral ecologists.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.289
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain Behavior and EvolutionSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207