MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976528305 · doi:10.1068/p6683

Mapping Emotion Category Boundaries Using a Visual Expectation Paradigm

2010· article· en· W1976528305 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna L Cheal, M. D. Rutherford

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacial expressionPsychologyEye movementCognitive psychologyStimulus (psychology)PerceptionEye trackingEmotional expressionCategorical perceptionCategorical variableFace perceptionExpression (computer science)CategorizationCommunicationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceSpeech perception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past research showing categorical perception of emotional facial expressions has relied on identification and discrimination tasks that require an explicit response via keypress. Here we report a new paradigm for investigating the category boundary of emotional facial expressions that, instead, relies on an implicit response--eye direction. Participants were trained to expect a target stimulus on a particular side of the monitor, predicted by an emotional expression on a face image. An eye-tracker then recorded eye movements of participants as they viewed novel intermediate facial-expression stimuli. Anticipatory eye movement was taken as evidence of categorisation. Results from two experiments suggest that this implicit method can be used to determine category boundaries, and that the boundaries found with this method are similar to those found with the keypress response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207