Bibliographic record
Abstract
String-pulling is among the most widespread cognitive tasks used to test problem-solving skills in mammals and birds. The task requires animals to comprehend that pulling on a non-valuable string moves an otherwise inaccessible food reward to within their reach. Although at least 90 avian species have been administered the string-pull test, all but five of them were perching birds (passeriformes) or parrots (psittaciformes). Waterbirds (Aequorlitornithes) are poorly represented in the cognitive literature, yet are known to engage in complex foraging behaviours. In this study, we tested whether free-living ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis), a species known for their behavioural flexibility and foraging innovativeness, could solve a horizontal string-pull test. Here, we show that 25% (26/104) of the ring-billed gulls that attempted to solve the test at least once over a maximum of three trials were successful, and that 21% of them (22/104) succeeded during their first attempt. Ring-billed gulls are thus the first waterbird known to solve a horizontal single-string-rewarded string-pull test. Since innovation rate and problem-solving are associated with species' ability to endure environmental alterations, we suggest that testing the problem-solving skills of other species facing environmental challenges will inform us of their vulnerability in a rapidly changing world.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".