NSF Workshop Report: Exploring Measurements and Interpretations of Intelligent Behaviors Across Animal Model Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining intelligence is a challenging and fraught task, but one that neuroscientists are repeatedly confronted with. A central goal of neuroscience is to understand how phenomena like intelligent behaviors emerge from nervous systems. This requires some determination of what defines intelligence and how to measure it. The challenge is multifaceted. For instance, as we begin to describe and understand the brain in increasingly specific physical terms (e.g., anatomy, cell types, activity patterns), we amplify an ever-growing divide in how we connect measurable properties of the brain to less tangible concepts like intelligence. As our appreciation for evolutionary diversity in neuroscience grows, we are further confronted with whether there can be a unifying theory of intelligence. The National Science Foundation (NSF) NeuroNex consortium recently gathered experts from multiple animal model systems to discuss intelligence across species. We summarize here the different perspectives offered by the consortium, with the goal of promoting thought and debate of this ancient question from a modern perspective, and asking whether defining intelligence is a useful exercise in neuroscience or an ill-posed and distracting question. We present data from the vantage points of humans, macaques, ferrets, crows, octopuses, bees, and flies, highlighting some of the noteworthy capabilities of each species within the context of each species' ecological niche and how these may be challenged by climate change. We also include a remarkable example of convergent evolution between primates and crows in the circuit and molecular basis for working memory in these highly divergent animal species.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".