MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118307493 · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.384

Reorientation in a Two-Dimensional Environment: II. Do Pigeons (Columba livia) Encode the Featural and Geometric Properties of a Two-Dimensional Schematic of a Room?

2004· article· en· W2118307493 on OpenAlexaff
Debbie M. Kelly, Marcia L. Spetch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of comparative psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsSchematicENCODEArtificial intelligenceComputer visionFeature (linguistics)CommunicationOrientation (vector space)MathematicsGeometryPsychologyComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pigeons (Columba livia) searched for a hidden target area in images showing a schematic rectangular environment. The absolute position of the goal varied across trials but was constant relative to distinctive featural cues and geometric properties of the environment. Pigeons learned to use both of these properties to locate the goal. Transformation tests showed that pigeons could use either the color or shape of the features, but performance was better with color cues present. Pigeons could also use a single featural cue at an incorrect corner to distinguish between the correct corner and the geometrically equivalent corner; this indicates that they did not simply use the feature at the correct corner as a beacon. Interestingly, pigeons that were trained with features spontaneously encoded geometry. The encoded geometric information withstood vertical translations but not orientation transformations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of comparative psychologySame topicSpatial Cognition and NavigationFrench-language works237,207