MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047415717 · doi:10.1177/0956797609356508

Holistic Processing Is Not Correlated With Face-Identification Accuracy

2009· article· en· W2047415717 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)PsychologyFace (sociological concept)Task (project management)Facial recognition systemFace perceptionCognitive psychologySocial psychologyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer sciencePerceptionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study tested the widespread assumption that holistic processing is important for the identification of upright faces. In two experiments, we show that (a) there are large individual differences in the magnitude of the composite face effect and face-identification accuracy and (b) the correlation between the magnitude of the composite face effect and face-identification accuracy is essentially zero. These findings are inconsistent with the claim that holistic processing, as indexed by the composite face effect, significantly influences accuracy in a face-identification task.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.254 · 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