MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402549987 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2023.0403

The function of episodic memory in animals

2024· review· en· W4402549987 on OpenAlexaff
Susan D. Healy, T. Andrew Hurly, Jeanne Godard, Maria C. Tello-Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersTempleton World Charity Foundation
KeywordsEpisodic memoryFunction (biology)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyNeuroscienceBiologyEvolutionary biologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The best-known example of episodic memory in animals came from food-storing birds. One of the beauties of the food-storing system was that inherent in the behaviour were the elements that (at the time) made up episodic memory: what, where and when. While there were then already plenty of data on animals' ability to put together what and where, the addition of the time element in animals' memory and its testing was one that was both new and experimentally challenging. It has, however, led to an increasing variety of examples showing that animals can put together all three informational components. If episodic memories can be described as those memories that make any one of us who we are, why should non-human animals have such memories? Here, we argue that episodic memories play a significant functional role in the lives of real animals, in particular, enabling them to make decisions about how they might or should act in their future. We support our argument with data from a range of examples, focussing on data from the field.This article is part of the theme issue 'Elements of episodic memory: lessons from 40 years of research'.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.267
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.110 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207