MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981383411 · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.114.4.357

Call-note discriminations in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus).

2000· article· en· W1981383411 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of comparative psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)CommunicationPsychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioacousticians (M.S. Ficken, S. R. Ficken, & S. R. Witken, 1978) classified black-capped chickadee call notes from the chick-a-dee call complex into 4 note types (A, B, C, and D) identified from sound spectrograms. In Experiment 1, chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) learned operant auditory discriminations both within and between the 4 note types but learned the between note-type discrimination significantly faster. In Experiment 2, when the original, unrewarded between-category exemplars were replaced with novel, rewarded exemplars of these same categories, chickadees showed transfer of inhibitory stimulus control to the novel exemplars. In Experiment 3, when novel exemplars were replaced by the original exemplars, chickadees showed propagation of positive stimulus control back to the original exemplars. This evidence suggests that chickadees and bioacousticians accurately sort conspecific call notes into the same open-ended categories (R. J. Herrnstein, 1990).

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.353 · 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