Olfactory self-recognition in two species of snake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mark tests, in which an animal uses a mirror to locate and examine an otherwise unnoticeable mark on its own body, are commonly used to assess self-recognition, which may have implications for self-awareness. Recently, several olfactory-reliant species have appeared to pass odour-based versions of the mark test, though it has never been attempted in reptiles. We conducted an odour-based mark test on two species of snakes, Eastern gartersnakes and ball pythons, with widely divergent ecologies (i.e. terrestrial foragers that communally brumate versus semi-arboreal ambush predators that do not). We find that gartersnakes, but not ball pythons, pass the test, and a range of control tests suggest this is based on self-recognition. Gartersnakes are more social than ball pythons, supporting recent suggestions that social species are more likely to self-recognize. These results open the door to examination of the ecology of self-recognition, and suggest that this ability may evolve in response to species-specific ecological challenges, some of which may align with complexity of social structures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".