Shortcut taking by ferrets ( Mustela putorius furo )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 2 X 2 between-subjects design was used to test for the tendency of domestic ferrets to take novel shortcuts. The cross maze with shortcuts adapted by Poucet (1985) was used to train ferrets to search for a goal (an empty food bowl) while having the possibility of seeing the shortcuts or not during training (i.e., a screen, which was either transparent or opaque, blocked off the shortcut). In the test sessions in which the animals were given access to the shortcuts, the goal was visible for half of the subjects in each training condition and not visible for the other half. Ferrets were more likely to take the shortcut if they had seen it during training, regardless of whether they could see the goal or not during the test: Visual familiarity with the shortcut is sufficient to account for shortcut taking. When the goal was not visible and the shortcut had not been seen prior to the test, performance was no different from chance: There was no evidence for the ability to infer a shortcut. Pronounced individual differences were obtained when the shortcut was visually unfamiliar yet the goal was visible.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".