Face of a fighter: Bizygomatic width as a cue of formidability
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
Humans can accurately extract information about men's formidability from their faces; however, the actual facial cues that inform these judgments have not been established. Here, through three studies, we test the hypothesis that bizygomatic width (i.e. facial width-to-height ratio, fWHR) covaries with actual physical formidability (hypothesis #1) and that humans use this cue when making assessments of formidability (hypothesis #2). Our data confirm that fWHR is predictive of actual fighting ability among professional combatants (study 1). We further show that subjects' assessments of formidability covary with the target's fWHR on natural faces (study 2), computer-generated images of strong and weak faces (study 2), and experimentally manipulated computer-generated faces (study 3). These results support the hypothesis that bizygomatic width is a cue of formidability that is assessed during agonistic encounters.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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