MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980105694 · doi:10.3819/ccbr.2008.10002

Comparative Cognition of Object Recognition

2006· article· en· W1980105694 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marcia L. Spetch, Alinda Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative cognitionObject (grammar)CognitionAnimal cognitionCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionComparative psychologyPsychologyReading (process)Cognitive scienceCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceNeuroscienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Object recognition is fundamental in the lives of most animals.The authors review research comparing object recognition in pigeons and humans.One series of studies investigated recognition of previously learned objects seen in novel depth rotations, including the influence of a single distinctive object part and whether the novel view was close to two or only one of the training views.Another series of studies investigated whether recognition of directly viewed objects differs from recognition of objects viewed in pictures.The final series of studies investigated the role of motion in object recognition.The authors review similarities and differences in object recognition between humans and pigeons.They also discuss future directions for comparative investigations of object recognition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative Cognition & Behavior ReviewsSame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207