LLM deployment in critical domains is currently impeded by persistent hallucinations--generating plausible but factually incorrect assertions. While scaling laws drove significant improvements in general capabilities, theoretical frameworks suggest hallucination is not merely stochastic error but a predictable statistical consequence of training objectives prioritizing mimicking data distribution over epistemic honesty. Standard RLVR paradigms, utilizing binary reward signals, inadvertently incentivize models as good test-takers rather than honest communicators, encouraging guessing whenever correctness probability exceeds zero. This paper presents an exhaustive investigation into behavioral calibration, which incentivizes models to stochastically admit uncertainty by abstaining when not confident, aligning model behavior with accuracy. Synthesizing recent advances, we propose and evaluate training interventions optimizing strictly proper scoring rules for models to output a calibrated probability of correctness. Our methods enable models to either abstain from producing a complete response or flag individual claims where uncertainty remains. Utilizing Qwen3-4B-Instruct, empirical analysis reveals behavior-calibrated reinforcement learning allows smaller models to surpass frontier models in uncertainty quantification--a transferable meta-skill decouplable from raw predictive accuracy. Trained on math reasoning tasks, our model's log-scale Accuracy-to-Hallucination Ratio gain (0.806) exceeds GPT-5's (0.207) in a challenging in-domain evaluation (BeyondAIME). Moreover, in cross-domain factual QA (SimpleQA), our 4B LLM achieves zero-shot calibration error on par with frontier models including Grok-4 and Gemini-2.5-Pro, even though its factual accuracy is much lower.