Comparing Sensitivity to Facial Asymmetry and Facial Identity
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
Bilateral symmetry is a facial feature that plays an important role in the aesthetic judgments of faces. The extent to which symmetry contributes to the identification of faces is less clear. We investigated the relationship between facial asymmetry and identity using synthetic face stimuli where the geometric identity of the face can be precisely controlled. Thresholds for all observers were 2 times lower for discriminating facial asymmetry than they were for discriminating facial identity. The advantage for discriminating asymmetrical forms was not observed using nonface shape stimuli, suggesting this advantage is face-specific. Moreover, asymmetry thresholds were not affected when faces were either inverted or constructed about a nonmean face. These results, taken together, suggest that facial asymmetry is a characteristic that we are exquisitely sensitive to, and that may not contribute to face identification. This conclusion is consistent with neuroimaging evidence that suggests that face symmetry and face identity are processed by different neural mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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