MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981868726 · doi:10.1177/1463499603003001749

How can we know the dancer from the dance?

2003· article· en· W1981868726 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

VenueAnthropological Theory · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunication sourceDanceDecodesCommunicationProcess (computing)Cognitive scienceSociologyCommunication theoryEpistemologyPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyVisual artsPhilosophyArtTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We argue that dynamic-systems theory (DST) offers researchers a promising alternative to the information-processing framework that has dominated the study of primate social communication. DST rejects a linear view of communication in which a sender transmits a signal to a receiver, who then decodes that signal for its information content. Instead, dynamic-systems theory envisions communication as an intrinsically creative process that unfolds as communicating partners continuously adjust their behaviors to one another. This process of continual adjustment, termed co-regulation, can be identified in the social communication of the African great apes. When researchers study communication in terms of co-regulated social interaction, new insights and research questions emerge that may help anthropologists better understand the nature of the vocal and gestural behaviors of our closest living relatives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

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 studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.297 · 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