MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136322816 · doi:10.3819/ccbr.2009.40004

Animal Metacognition: Problems and Prospects

2009· article· en· W2136322816 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. David Smith, Michael J. Beran, Justin J. Couchman, Mariana V. C. Coutinho, Joseph Boomer

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacognitionComparative psychologyAnimal cognitionCenter (category theory)Animal behaviorComparative cognitionPsychologyResearch centerCognitionCognitive scienceMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animal Metacognition: Problems and Prospects by J. David Smith Department of Psychology and Center for Cognitive Science, SUNY Buffalo Michael J. Beran, Language Research Center, Georgia State University Duke University Justin J. Couchman, Department of Psychology, SUNY Buffalo Mariana V. C. Coutinho Department of Psychology, SUNY Buffalo Joseph B.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.019
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.415
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.001 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative Cognition & Behavior ReviewsSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207