Pigeons make errors as a result of interval timing in a visual, but not a visual-spatial, midsession reversal task.
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
It has been shown previously that pigeons make surprising errors on a visually based midsession reversal task (Cook & Rosen, 2010; Rayburn-Reeves, Molet, & Zentall, 2011). We trained birds with red and green sidekeys, with one color rewarded in the first 40 trials (S1) and the other color rewarded in the latter 40 trials (S2). Importantly, in Phases 1 and 3, red and green were always presented on the same side, whereas in Phase 2 sidekeys were presented on the left and right equally often. In Phases 2 and 3, probe sessions with intertrial intervals (ITIs) longer or shorter than the training intertribal interval (ITI) were interjected among baseline sessions. Results showed that pigeons presented with visual-only cues used interval duration since the beginning of the session to predict when the reversal of reward contingency would occur, but pigeons presented with color and spatial dimensions confounded for predicting reward tended to use a more optimal reward-following strategy of choice based on local reinforcement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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