person perception based on rape-victim testimony
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
ABSTRACT Is it possible for a person's face to appear differently to observers depending on the perceived personality of that person? Subjects read about a sexual assault in which a male or female witness either smiled and watched the rape, or called for help and scared off the attacker. Those who read about the harmful witness rated him or her as consistently more hostile, socially deviant, dominant, sadistic, and more likely to take risks than the helpful witness, and as having less empathy and nurturance. The subjects then received a composite photograph of the witness and were asked to make several global and specific facial feature ratings. Those who previously perceived the male or female witness as having negative personality traits, also rated him or her as having a more thin, narrow, and pale face, a more narrow and square chin, with a long nose and thin lips, compared to the witness who was judged in more positive terms. We discuss these results in terms of the validity of eyewitness testimony.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
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