Blue tits are outperformed by great tits in a test of motor inhibition, and experience does not improve their performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor inhibition refers to the ability to inhibit immediate responses in favour of adaptive actions that are mediated by executive functions. This ability may be an indication of general cognitive ability in animals and is important for advanced cognitive functions. In this study, our aim was to compare motor inhibition ability of two closely related passerines that share the same habitat. To do this, we tested motor inhibition ability using a transparent cylinder task in blue tits in the same way as we previously tested great tits. To test whether the experience of transparent objects would affect the performance of these species differently, both in the present experiment using blue tits and our previous one on great tits, we divided 33 wild-caught individuals into three different treatment groups with 11 birds each. Before the test we allowed one group to experience a transparent cylindrical object, one group to experience a transparent wall and a third group was kept naive. In general, blue tits performed worse than great tits, and unlike the great tits, they did not improve their performance after experience with a transparent cylinder-like object. The performance difference may stem from difference in foraging behaviour between these species.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".