Machine learning to detect schedules using spatiotemporal data of behavior: A proof of concept
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the experimental analysis of behavior has relied on the single discrete response paradigm (e.g., key pecks, lever presses, screen clicks) to identify behavioral patterns. However, the development and availability of new technology allow researchers to move beyond this paradigm and use other features to detect schedules. Thus, our study used spatiotemporal data to compare the accuracy of four machine learning algorithms (i.e., logistic regression, support vector classifiers, random forests, and artificial neural networks) in detecting the presence and the components of time-based schedules in 12 rats involved in a behavioral experiment. Using spatiotemporal data, the algorithms accurately identified the presence or absence of programmed schedules and correctly differentiated between fixed- and variable-space schedules. That said, our analyses failed to identify an algorithm to discriminate fixed-time from variable-time schedules. Furthermore, none of the algorithms performed systematically better than the others. Our findings provide preliminary support for the utility of using spatiotemporal data with machine learning to detect stimulus schedules.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it