Ecological not social factors explain brain size in cephalopods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Social factors have been argued to be the main selection pressure for the evolution of large brains and complex behavior on the basis of data from mammals and birds. Coleoid cephalopods (octopuses, squid, and cuttlefish) have large brains, complex nervous systems and show signs of intelligent behavior comparable to that of primates, cetaceans, and birds. However, many cephalopods live largely solitary, semelparous, short lives, and many are cannibalistic, leaving little to no opportunity for parental care, complex group dynamics, or social learning. This suggests that the large brains found in cephalopods are not the result of social selection pressures. Here, motivated by the predictions of the “Asocial Brain Hypothesis”, a yet untested regime of the Cultural Brain Hypothesis formal model, we compare the relationships between brain size and social, ecological, and other factors in cephalopods. Consistent with the prediction that ecological factors should be the primary selection pressure with larger brains in more calorie-rich complex ecologies, we find that shallower and benthic (seafloor) habitats—arguably more complex environments than open-ocean (pelagic) habitats—are associated with larger brain sizes, and that measures of sociality are not. Our findings from these highly divergent evolutionary lineages, which diverged from vertebrates over 500 million years ago are not causal, but are consistent with the “Asocial Brain Hypothesis” mechanistic model that describes how ecological selection pressures can also produce large, complex brains.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".