MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393032377 · doi:10.3819/ccbr.2024.190012

Comparative Cognition Research: Where Do We Go from Here?

2024· article· en· W4393032377 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas R. Zentall

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative cognitionAnimal cognitionAnimal behaviorComparative psychologyPsychologyCognitionCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative cognition has many creative researchers who ask important questions but lack the funds to answer them.Funds are still available for neuroscience and drug research, but most funding institutions, especially in the United States, rarely fund behavioral research.Many researchers have begun doing field and zoo research.Researchers at smaller institutions can sometimes do research with secondhand equipment and without animal care charges.Our field may benefit if we try to make greater connections between ourselves and human researchers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.436
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.036 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative Cognition & Behavior ReviewsSame topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207