Involvement of the neural social behaviour network during social information acquisition in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata will copy the novel foraging choice of males. The degree to which they do so, however, can vary considerably. Among-individual differences in social learning and their underlying neural pathways have received relatively little attention and remain poorly understood. Here, then, we allowed female zebra finches to observe live-streamed male demonstrators feeding from one of two novel-coloured feeders (social information acquisition phase). After this social information acquisition phase, we tested from which feeder the females preferred to feed to determine whether they copied the feeder choice of the male demonstrator (social learning test phase). We then examined the brains of these females for immediate early gene activity (c- fos ) in the neural social behaviour network for the time during which they were observing the male feeding. Of the 12 regions and sub-regions in the brain examined we found only one weak correlation: greater copying was associated with lower activity in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, BSTmv. Future work should perhaps focus on neural activity that occurs during the stage in which there is evidence that animals have copied a demonstrator (i.e., social learning test phase in the current experiment) rather than during the period in which those animals observe that demonstrator (i.e., social information acquisition phase in the current experiment). What is clear is that the considerable emphasis on examining the behavioural component of social learning has not yet been accompanied by neural analyses.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".