Comparative Approaches to the Natural Ecology of Metacognition
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
Most cognitive scientists assume that some, if not many, of our cognitive abilities evolved through natural selection.However, we lack the ability to assess causality concerning the natural selection processes that shaped human cognition.Elsewhere, we have argued that the road to understanding human cognitive evolution is through examining how natural ecology predicts changes in cognition across nonhuman species.However, this approach is not fully experimental, as it depends on the inferences that we make concerning correlations between natural ecology and behavior.The path to understanding human cognitive evolution is even more difficult when we consider that current functionality of our cognitive systems almost certainly does not entirely reflect their evolved functionality.Acknowledging the difficulty, we promote the view that we can understand natural selection of human cognition through the comparative study of animals and their natural ecology.In this article, we consider metacognition-the experience and knowledge of one's own cognitive system-as a case example.We review the research on human and nonhuman primate metacognition with an eye toward what the comparative approach can tell us about the trajectory of the evolution of human metacognition.We advocate for an approach to metacognition that makes hypotheses based on the natural ecology of species and then applies those hypotheses to a wide range of 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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