MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104599257 · doi:10.1037/0097-7403.31.3.376

Applying Bubbles to Localize Features That Control Pigeons' Visual Discrimination Behavior.

2005· article· en· W2104599257 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 Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDiscrimination learningCommunicationArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPattern recognition (psychology)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors trained pigeons to discriminate images of human faces that displayed: (a) a happy or a neutral expression or (b) a man or a woman. After training the pigeons, the authors used a new procedure called Bubbles to pinpoint the features of the faces that were used to make these discriminations. Bubbles revealed that the features used to discriminate happy from neutral faces were different from those used to discriminate male from female faces. Furthermore, the features that pigeons used to make each of these discriminations overlapped those used by human observers in a companion study (F. Gosselin & P.G. Schyns, 2001). These results show that the Bubbles technique can be effectively applied to nonhuman animals to isolate the functional features of complex visual stimuli.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.340 · 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