Preference for free or forced choice in Sumatran orangutans (<i>Pongo abelii</i>)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical investigations of humans, pigeons, rats, and monkeys have indicated that these species will select free over forced choice, even when faced with identical outcomes. However, the same has yet to be quantitatively confirmed in nonhuman great apes. This experiment is the first systematic investigation of preference for free or forced choice in great apes using a paradigm in which extraneous variables are highly controlled. Three orangutans were given a choice of one of two virtual routes, one that provided a choice and one that did not via a touchscreen computer program. Choice of either route was rewarded with the same type and quantity of food. Initial results indicated a preference for free choice across all three participants. However, in two control conditions, orangutans' preferences varied, suggesting a weaker tendency to exercise choice than species previously tested. We suggest further investigation of preference for free and forced choice in orangutans and other great apes through alternative experimental paradigms that focus on increasing the fidelity of free and forced choice options.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it