Ants Fail to Add Numbers of Same Elements Seen Consecutively
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The workers of the ant Myrmica sabuleti have been shown to be able to distinguish different numbers of elements and to be able to add them if seen side by side, at the same time. They have thus a concrete concept of numbers and of adding. It remained to know if they have an abstract mathematical concept of numbers and of their addition. For tempting answering this question, we presented, to M. sabuleti workers, two numbers of elements (circles) not placed side by side but making an angle, the ants having thus to move for seeing the one then the other of the numbers of elements. After 3, 6, 9 and 12 of such training days, the ants were tested in front of the two numbers of elements as well as of their correct sum and their sum plus one element. The ants responded essentially to the two numbers of elements they saw during training, and far less to their sum and sum plus one element. The ants have thus a basic, concrete concept of adding numbers of elements they see. Young human children (3 to 6 years old) have such a concrete concept of numbers and of adding, but they acquire in several months, through learning, an abstract mathematical concept of these notions and of related ones.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".