MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986440126 · doi:10.1080/00221320009596717

Facial Morphology and Children's Categorization of Facial Expressions of Emotions: A Comparison Between Asian and Caucasian Faces

2000· article· en· W1986440126 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Genetic Psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationFacial expressionSurpriseDisgustPsychologySet (abstract data type)Facial Action Coding SystemExpression (computer science)Developmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationSocial psychologyAngerArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of Asian and Caucasian facial morphology were examined by having Canadian children categorize pictures of facial expressions of basic emotions. The pictures were selected from the Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emotion set developed by D. Matsumoto and P. Ekman (1989). Sixty children between the ages of 5 and 10 years were presented with short stories and an array of facial expressions, and were asked to point to the expression that best depicted the specific emotion experienced by the characters. The results indicated that expressions of fear and surprise were better categorized from Asian faces, whereas expressions of disgust were better categorized from Caucasian faces. These differences originated in some specific confusions between expressions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.318 · 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