MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393063361 · doi:10.3819/ccbr.2024.190016

Taking Welfare into Account in Comparative Cognition Research

2024· article· en· W4393063361 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative cognitionPsychologyComparative psychologyCognitionComparative researchAnimal behaviorCognitive psychologyAnimal cognitionWelfareAnimal welfareCognitive scienceNeuroscienceEcologyEconomicsZoologySociologyBiologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing species-specific traits and individual experiences is crucial for understanding their impact on cognitive development and task performance. To reliably compare cognitive performance across species, it is vital to maintain consistency in husbandry, environment, and commensurate affective state, ensuring the same potential to develop and demonstrate their cognitive capacity. Given variations in welfare needs among species, populations, and individuals, developing species-specific indicators and measures is essential to assess, control, and better account for differences in current and cumulative welfare experiences.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.642
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.014 · 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