MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123894563 · doi:10.1037/a0018084

Spatial memory in dogs (Canis familiaris) on a radial maze.

2010· article· en· W2123894563 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 comparative psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRadial arm mazeCanisWorking memoryPsychologyAudiologyAnimal scienceNeuroscienceMedicineBiologyCognitionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Working spatial memory in dogs (Canis familiaris) was tested in Experiments 1 and 2 on an 8-arm radial maze. When dogs chose freely among all 8 arms containing food in Experiment 1, they learned to enter all 8 arms with progressively fewer arm visits over trials. In Experiment 2, 2 groups of dogs were forced to visit 4 randomly chosen arms on the maze and then tested for memory of these arm visits using a win-shift rule for 1 group and a win-stay rule for the other group. Dogs performed better with the win-shift rule than with the win-stay rule. In Experiment 3, reference memory was investigated by using a 4-arm maze on which 0, 1, 3, and 6 pieces of food were consistently placed on different arms. Dogs learned to visit the arms with the larger amounts before the arms with the smaller amounts. Dogs' memory capacity in these studies was found to be surprisingly low.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.387 · 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