MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024909130 · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.118.1.3

Levels of Abstraction in Orangutan (Pongo abelii) Categorization.

2004· article· en· W2024909130 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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGorillaAbstractionCategorizationNatural (archaeology)Pongo pygmaeusCommunicationPsychologyCognitive psychologyEvolutionary biologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceZoologyBiologyEpistemologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Levels of abstraction have rarely been manipulated in studies of natural concept formation in nonhumans. Isolated examples have indicated that animals, relative to humans, may learn concepts at varying levels of abstraction with differential ease. The ability of 6 orangutans (Pongo abelii) of various ages to make natural concept discriminations at 3 levels of abstraction was therefore investigated. The orangutans were rewarded for selecting photos of orangutans instead of humans and other primates (concrete level), primates instead of other animals (intermediate level), and animals instead of nonanimals (abstract level) in a 2-choice touch screen procedure. The results suggest that, like a gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) tested previously (Vonk & MacDonald, 2002), orangutans can learn concepts at each level of abstraction, and unlike other nonhumans, most of these subjects rapidly learned the intermediate level discrimination.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.336 · 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