The optimal time to approach an unfamiliar object: a Bayesian model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many organisms take time before approaching unfamiliar objects. This caution forms the basis of some well-known assays in the fields of behavioral ecology, comparative psychology, and animal welfare, including quantifying the personality traits of individuals and evaluating the extent of their neophobia. In this paper, we present a mathematical model which identifies the optimal time an observer should wait before approaching an unfamiliar object. The model is Bayesian, and simply assumes that the longer the observer goes without being attacked by an unfamiliar object, the lower will be the observer’s estimated probability that the object is dangerous. Given the information gained, a time is reached at which the expected benefits from approaching the object begin to exceed the costs. The model not only explains why latency to approach may be repeatable among individuals and varies with the object’s appearance but also why individuals habituate to the stimulus, approaching it more rapidly over repeated trials. We demonstrate the applicability of our model by fitting it to published data on the time taken by chicks to attack artificial caterpillars that share no, one, or two signaling traits with snakes (eyespots and posture). We use this example to show that while the optimal time to attack an unfamiliar object reflects the observer’s expectation that the object is dangerous, the rate at which habituation arises is also a function of the observer’s certainty in their belief. In so doing, we explain why observers become more rapidly habituated to “weaker” stimuli than the “stronger” ones.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".