When do octopuses play? Effects of repeated testing, object type, age, and food deprivation on object play in Octopus vulgaris.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying play behavior in octopuses is an important step toward understanding the phylogenetic origins and function of play as well as the cognitive abilities of invertebrates. Fourteen Octopus vulgaris (7 subadults and 7 adults) were presented 2 Lego objects and 2 different food items on 7 consecutive days under 2 different levels of food deprivation. Nine subjects showed play-like behavior with the Lego objects. There was no significant difference in play-like behavior corresponding to food deprivation, age, and sex of the octopuses. The sequence of behaviors, from exploration to play-like behavior, had a significant influence on the establishment of play-like behavior, as it occurred mostly on Days 3-6 of the 7-day experiment. The pattern of development of play-like activities after a period of exploration and habituation in this study agrees with the hypothesis that object play follows object exploration. A homologous origin of this behavioral trait in vertebrates and invertebrates is highly unlikely, as the last common ancestor might not have had the cognitive capacity to possess this trait.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".