MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138589866 · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00244

Pigeons Flexibly Time or Count on Cue

2000· article· en· W2138589866 on OpenAlexaff
William A. Roberts, Ryan Coughlin, Shelley Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCued speechPsychologyPecking orderPeck (Imperial)StatisticsAudiologyCognitive psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Experiment 1, pigeons were presented with a sequence of light flashes and cued to peck a key for reward either after a fixed time or after a fixed number of flashes. Curves that showed the rate of key pecking over time within trials indicated that peak rates of response were reached near the fixed time on timing-cued trials and near the fixed number of flashes on counting-cued trials. In Experiment 2, the key cue was shifted from timing to counting or from counting to timing midway through a trial. The peak times reached after the cue change indicated that pigeons kept track of time while cued to count but did not count while cued to time. These findings suggest a basic asymmetry in the dual-mode model of timing and counting.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.013

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.293 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations53
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207