Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most processes or forms of learning have been treated almost as special creations, each as an independent process unrelated to others. This review offers an evolutionary cladogram linking nearly one hundred forms of learning and showing the paths through which they evolved. Many processes have multiple forms. There are at least five imprinting processes, eleven varieties of Pavlovian conditioning, ten of instrumental conditioning, and eight forms of mimicry and imitation. Song learning evolved independently in at least six groups of animals, and movement imitation in three (great apes, cetaceans and psittacine birds). The cladogram also involves at least eight new processes: abstract concept formation, percussive mimicry, cross-modal imitation, apo-conditioning, hybrid conditioning, proto-pantomime, prosodic mimicry, and image-mediated learning. At least eight of the processes evolved from more than one source. Multiple sources are of course consistent with modern evolutionary theory, as seen in some obligate symbionts, and gene-swapping organisms. Song learning is believed to have evolved from two processes: auditory imprinting and skill learning. Many single words evolved from three sources: vocal mimicry, discrimination learning, and abstract concept formation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".