Links between personality traits and problem-solving performance in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistent individual differences in behaviour across time or contexts (i.e., personality types) have been found in many species and have implications for fitness. Likewise, individual variation in cognitive abilities has been shown to impact fitness. Cognition and personality are complex, multidimensional traits. However, previous work has generally examined the connection between a single personality trait and a single cognitive ability, yielding equivocal results. Links between personality and cognitive ability suggest that behavioural traits coevolved and highlight their nuanced connections. Here we examined individuals’ performance on multiple personality tests and repeated problem-solving tests (each measuring innovative performance). We assessed behavioural traits (dominance, boldness, activity, risk-taking, aggressiveness, and obstinacy) in 41 captive zebra finches. Birds’ scores for boldness and obstinacy were consistent over two years. We also examined whether personality correlated with problem-solving performance on repeated tests. Our results indicate that neophobia, dominance, and obstinacy were related to successful solving, and less dominant, more obstinate birds solved the tasks quicker on average. Our results indicate the importance of examining multiple measures over a long period. Future work that identifies links between personality and innovation in non-model organisms may elucidate the coevolution of these two forms of individual differences.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".