Learning a Behavioral Sequence: An Accessible Challenge for Myrmica sabuleti Workers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to investigate on the ability of the ant Myrmica sabuleti in learning a behavioral sequence. We created two sequences consisting in navigating through five successive elements on the way to the nest, and tried to learn them to foragers. They could progressively learn a sequence for which the different steps were presented in a backward order. Doing so, each exhibited step leaded to an already known step and thus to the reward consisting in finally entering the nest. The ants were unable to learn a behavioral sequence for which the different steps were presented in a forward order. With the latter kind of presentation, each exhibited step leaded to an unknown step and thus not to the reward. Myrmica sabuleti ants learned thus a behavioral sequence when going through operant conditioning and not by using the response to a step as a motivation for responding to the next step. On the contrary, highly evolved mammals (monkey, humans) and birds (parrots) can learn a behavioral sequence according to a backward or a forward chaining, or by being presented with the entire sequence and memorizing, then imitating the different steps.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".