MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810545447 · doi:10.1111/eth.12773

Tree cricket baffles are manufactured tools

2018· article· en· W2810545447 on OpenAlexaff
Natasha Mhatre

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersWissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin
KeywordsBaffleComputer scienceTree (set theory)AcousticsEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tree crickets use sound to attract mates and make acoustic baffles to increase their sound production efficiency. It has been recently discovered that these insects use a flexible yet inherited behavioural programme to make acoustically optimal baffles. Whether these baffles qualify as tools, however, remains controversial. Here, baffle‐using and baffle‐making behaviours are analysed using the most current and authoritative definition of tool use. The current definition of tool use does not require the tool to be detached from the substrate and includes attached but manipulable external objects. Given this schema, tree cricket baffles, which are attached but manipulated prior to use, must be considered tools. The mode of manufacture for a baffle is “Subtract,” and the mode of use is “Drape”.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207