Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal Social Complexity: Intelligence, Culture, and Individualized Societies. Frans B. M. de Waal and Peter L. Tyack, eds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003. 640 pp., illus. $49.95 (ISBN 0674009290 cloth). This multiauthored volume is derived from a “two-tiered” conference that took place in Chicago in August 2000. Part of the conference was concerned with social complexity and intelligence in animals, and part was a “celebration of 40 years of research by Jane Goodall and her group at Gombe.” The resulting symposium volume has all the strengths and weaknesses common to the genre. On the one hand, it is stronger than some symposium collections both in the excellence of its contributors and in the intrinsic interest of the material discussed. On the other hand, it includes little in the way of new theory, and the loosely defined themes that serve to organize the volume result in breadth rather than depth of coverage of most issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".