MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983087177 · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.114.4.315

Spatial encoding of hidden objects in dogs (Canis familiaris).

2000· article· en· W1983087177 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
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrame of referenceReference frameSpatial analysisCanisObject (grammar)LandmarkEncoding (memory)Frame (networking)Artificial intelligenceENCODECommunicationPosition (finance)Spatial learningComputer visionSpatial cognitionCartographyComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)GeographyPsychologyNeuroscienceBiologyCognitionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors investigated the type of spatial information that controls domestic dogs' (Canis familiaris) search behavior in a situation in which they have to locate a spatial position where they saw an object move and disappear. In Experiments 1 and 2, the authors manipulated all local and global sources of allocentric spatial information surrounding the hiding location. The results revealed that dogs relied on an egocentric frame of reference. Experiment 3 showed that dogs also encoded allocentric information when egocentric information was irrelevant. The authors conclude that dogs simultaneously encode both egocentric and allocentric spatial information to locate a spatial position, but they primarily base their search behavior on an egocentric frame of reference. The authors discuss under which natural conditions dogs might use these 2 sources of spatial information and detail the nature of spatial egocentric information and the circumstances underlying its use by dogs.

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 score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.376 · 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