Mirror‐mediated responses of California scrub jays (<i>Aphelocoma californica</i>) during a caching task and the mark test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mirror self‐recognition, as an index of self‐awareness, has been proposed as a precursor for more complex social cognitive abilities, such as prosocial reasoning and cooperative decision‐making. Indeed, evidence for mirror self‐recognition has been shown for animals possessing complex social cognitive abilities such as great apes, dolphins, elephants and corvids. California scrub jays ( Aphelocoma californica ) have provided strong evidence that non‐human animals are capable of mental state attribution. For instance, scrub jays are reported to use their experience stealing the food of others to infer that other birds may similarly intend to steal from them. If a concept of “self” is required for such complex social cognitive abilities, then scrub jays might be expected to show mirror self‐recognition. Thus, we examined whether California scrub jays are capable of mirror self‐recognition using two experimental contexts: a caching task and the mark test. During the caching task, we compared the extent to which scrub jays protected their food after caching alone, in the presence of a conspecific and in the presence of a mirror. The birds did not engage in more cache protection behaviours with a mirror present than when caching alone, suggesting scrub jays may have recognized their reflection and so did not expect cache theft. Alternative explanations for this behaviour are also discussed. During the mark test, the scrub jays were surreptitiously marked with a red or plumage‐coloured control sticker. The scrub jays showed no evidence of mirror self‐recognition during the mark test, as the birds did not preferentially attempt to remove the red mark in the presence of a mirror. Together, the results provide mixed evidence of the mirror self‐recognition abilities of California scrub jays. We highlight the need to develop alternative approaches for evaluating mirror self‐recognition in non‐human animals to better understand its relationship with complex social cognition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".