Relative Pattern Preferences by Bumblebees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bumblebees were trained to discriminate between two patterns, one rewarding (S+) and another unrewarding (S-) consisting of four orthogonal bars. Training and testing conditions were manipulated in a 2 X 2 between groups design. The training patterns differed only in the positioning of the bars in the inferior or the superior portion. The same was true of the testing patterns, both of which were unrewarding. A significant interaction between training and testing conditions was obtained on preference for one pattern, the diamond, which was present at testing for all four conditions. For the groups that were trained with the patterns that differed only in the inferior portion, when tested with patterns that differed in (1) the inferior portion: the diamond, for which the inferior portion matched that of the S+, was chosen at a level significantly above chance (2) the superior portion: the preference for the diamond disappeared-- no discriminationwas found, even though the alternative to the diamond was the same as the S+. For the groups that were trained with the patterns that differed only in the superior portion, the opposite effect of testing conditions was found: when tested with patterns that differed in (1) the inferior portion: the bees avoided the very same diamond that was preferred by the bees trained differently, and favoured the alternative, which was the same as the S+ (2) the superior portion: no pattern discrimination was found (i.e. the avoidance of the diamond disappeared). Two predictions were disconfirmed: that during testing bees would only (1) approach the pattern that was the same as the S+, or (2) discriminate between patterns that differed in the same area (inferior or superior) as did the training patterns. The data were in line with the interpretation that during differential conditioning the visual field used in future pattern discriminations is expanded to include not only the inferior portion of the pattern but more of the superior portion as well.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.017 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".