FAILURE TO FIND EVIDENCE OF STIMULUS GENERALIZATION WITHIN PICTORIAL CATEGORIES IN PIGEONS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced in the presence of pictures from one of two categories, cats or cars. A single picture associated with reinforcement was used in Experiment 1, and 20 pictures from the same category were associated with reinforcement in Experiment 2. Pigeons then were presented with novel test pictures from the training category and from the other, previously unseen, category. During Session 1 of testing, pigeons pecked no more often at pictures from the reinforced category than at pictures from the previously unseen category. When pigeons were trained with pictures associated with reinforcement or its absence from different categories in Experiment 3, differential responding to novel pictures from different categories appeared during Session 1. These findings argue against a process of automatic stimulus generalization within natural categories and in favor of the position that category distinctions are not made until members of at least two categories are compared with one another.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it