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
There are many adaptationist hypotheses and non-selectionist accounts for the evolution of play. Some scholars argued that, 'primary-process play' originally arose as a by-product of fortuitous conditions, adaptive or not (e.g. high metabolic energy, boredom). Once evolved, these basic playful behavioral elements, characterized by some quirkiness, arbitrariness, redundancy, flexibility, and latent potential, may serve as a built-in reservoir of creative and adaptive variability. As such, they could subsequently be co-opted for beneficial or fitness-enhancing behavioral effects (i.e. exaptations Type 2) during further evolutionary transformation into more elaborate secondary-process and tertiary-process play. We built a theoretical case for (object) play as a co-optable behavioral spandrel, with a potential for exaptations Type 2, and proposed a research design to empirical test whether stone play traditions can be exapted into stone tool use in non-human primates. Our approach is consistent with Gould's pluralistic perspective on evolutionary theory.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it