MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078421083 · doi:10.1100/tsw.2006.261

Cues of High and Low Body Weight Negatively Influence Adults' Perceptions and Ratings in the Hypothetical Adoption Paradigm

2006· review· en· W2078421083 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony A. Volk, Vernon L. Quinsey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionComputer sciencePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infant and child facial cues influence perceptions and ratings in the Hypothetical Adoption Paradigm as well as actual parental care. A previous study demonstrated that infant and child facial cues of low body weight negatively influenced adults' ratings. The current study sought to replicate and expand on those results by presenting adults with normal faces as well as faces that were digitally altered to display high or low body weight. Cues of abnormal body weight significantly, and negatively, influenced adults' ratings of adoption preference, health, and cuteness. Effect sizes were larger for cues of high body weight. Thus, infant and child facial cues of abnormal body weight may represent a relative risk factor to the quality of adult care obtained by children with abnormal body weight.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207