MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529411701 · doi:10.1177/0963721416665007

Of Dogs and Men

2016· article· en· W2529411701 on OpenAlexaff
William A. Roberts, Krista Macpherson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Directions in Psychological Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHuman memoryCognitionCognitive psychologySocial cueSocial cognitionSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments involving dog-human social cognition have shown dogs’ close attention to human behavioral cues. Dogs remained near a fallen owner, avoided a deceptive human, and preferred a human that provided valid information about the location of a reward over an uninformative human. On the other hand, dogs showed no evidence of going for help in an emergency, having theory of mind or metacognition, or performing successive numerical discrimination. When tested for spatial memory and simultaneous numerical discrimination, dogs showed evidence of these abilities but also showed lower performance levels than found in other species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.409 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Directions in Psychological ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207