MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064466118 · doi:10.1037/0097-7403.34.2.266

Memory without awareness: Pigeons do not show metamemory in delayed matching to sample.

2008· article· en· W2064466118 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMetamemoryPsychologyMatching (statistics)Cognitive psychologyMemory testMetacognitionStatisticsCognitionNeuroscienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metamemory, the ability to report on memory strength, is clearly established in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) by converging evidence from several paradigms. In contrast, A. Inman and S. J. Shettleworth (1999) found no conclusive evidence of metamemory in pigeons. The authors studied pigeons further in 3 paradigms, with multiple tests of metamemory in each. Pigeons encountered a safe alternative to a matching-to-sample test either before (Experiment 2) or concurrently with (Experiment 3) the matching test. Choices of the safe option did not vary consistently with matching accuracy or change in trials with omitted samples in the way predicted for an animal with metamemory. In Experiment 4, confidence ratings following completion of the matching test also did not vary consistently as predicted by metamemory.

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 score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.327 · 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