Bibliographic record
Abstract
To answer the question of whether sensory pleasure exists in birds, I trained an African-gray parrot (Psittacus erythacus) named Aristote to speak. Stage 1 of the study consisted in gaining Aristote's affection. In Stage 2 Aristote was taught to speak, following Irene Pepperberg's triangular method: another person and I would talk together and look at Aristote only when it used understandable French words. Thus Aristote learned to say a few words for obtaining toys or getting my attention; e.g. “donne bouchon” (give cork) or “donne gratte” (give scratch/tickle), with the appropriate reward. In Stage 3, the word bon (good) was added to the short list of words used by Aristote. I said “bon” when giving Aristote the stimuli it requested and which would, presumably, be pleasurable; e.g. gratte bon. Aristote started to use short sentences such as “yaourt bon” (good yogurt). Eventually, Aristote transferred the word bon to new stimuli such as raisin (grape), an association I myself had never made. Such a use of vocabulary, and moreover its transfer, likely shows that this bird experienced sensory pleasure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".