Some Characteristics and Arguments in Favor of a Science of Machine Behavior Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, researchers and practitioners recognize four domains of behavior analysis: radical behaviorism, the experimental analysis of behavior, applied behavior analysis, and the practice of behavior analysis. Given the omnipresence of technology in every sphere of our lives, the purpose of this conceptual paper is to describe and argue in favor of a fifth domain: machine behavior analysis. Machine behavior analysis is a science that examines how machines interact with and produce relevant changes in their external environment by relying on replicability, behavioral terminology, and the philosophical assumptions of behavior analysis (e.g., selectionism, determinism, parsimony) to study their artificial behavior. Arguments in favor of a science of machine behavior include the omnipresence and impact of machines on human behavior, the inability of engineering alone to explain and control machine behavior, and the need to organize a community of non-mentalistic scientists around a common issue. Regardless of whether behavior analysts agree or disagree with our position, we argue that we need to debate the topic. As such, the current article aims to encourage and contribute to this debate.
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 | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".