Black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) and human (Homo sapiens) chord discrimination.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human music perception is related both to musical experience and the physical properties of sound. Examining the processing of music by nonhuman animals has been generally neglected. We tested both black-capped chickadees and humans in a chord discrimination task that replicates and extends prior research with pigeons. We found that chickadees and humans, in common with pigeons, showed similar patterns of discrimination across manipulations of the 3rd and 5th notes of the triadic chords. For all species (chickadee and humans here, pigeons previously), chords with half-step alterations in the 5th note were easier to discriminate than half-step manipulations of the 3rd note, which is likely due to the sensory consonance of these chords. There were differences among species in terms of the fine discrimination of the chords within this larger pattern of results. Further, the ability to relearn the chords when transposed to a new root differed across species. Our results provide new comparative data suggesting some similarities in chord perception that span a wide range of species, from pigeons (nonvocal learners) to songbirds and humans (vocal learners).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it