MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016902335 · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.115.1.29

Do big-brained animals play more? Comparative analyses of play and relative brain size in mammals.

2001· article· en· W2016902335 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain sizeBiologyPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyZoologyTaxonomic rankPhylogenetic comparative methodsEncephalizationEcologyTaxonGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been hypothesized that play is more likely to be present in larger brained species. We tested this hypothesis in mammals using independent contrasts, a method that controls for phylogenetic relatedness. Comparisons across 15 orders revealed that the prevalence and complexity of play was significantly correlated with brain size, with larger brained orders having more playful species. Three orders, Rodentia, Marsupialia, and Primates, were used for within-order comparisons among species and, where possible, among families. The comparisons were not significant for rodents or primates, and those for marsupials yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, although a strong relationship is present at the highest taxonomic level of comparison, it diminishes or evaporates at lower level comparisons.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.310 · 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