Sensitivity to Number Parity in Young Myrmica Sabuleti Ants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young Myrmica sabuleti worker ants aged at most a few weeks and settled in small single-cohort colonies, were learned, by operant conditioning, to recognize either 2 or 3 dots displayed on a stand. When tested in front of two stands bearing different numbers of dots, one even and the other odd, their response was always higher towards the stand bearing the same parity as the one learned. They thus reacted to the parity corresponding to the number of dots they have learned to associate with the reward. These young ants were sensitive to the parity of a number of dots ranging from 1 to at least 6, but could not discriminate their parity when in front of 5 and 6. They were somewhat more responsive towards an even number than towards an odd number, having learned a number with this parity. A preceding study showed that older workers (experienced foragers) are sensitive to the parity of numbers of dots ranging from 1 to at least 7, and this equally whether the numbers are odd or even. Their limit of parity discrimination of close numbers is in front of 6 and 7. It therefore appears that, although present early on, the sensitivity of young workers to parity of numbers of elements and to number discrimination has to improve over the course of their lives, perhaps through an age-related maturation process, or through acquired experience.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".