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
Persons engaged in talking often make manual gestures. When a gesture or a sequence of such gestures ends, the hands are brought to a rest position. In previous work it has been observed that in such rest positions the hands tend to assume one of two poses: Collection, in which the digits are lightly semi-flexed and closed, and Stationing, in which the digits are open and the digits and palm contact the body or a surface. In previous work it has also been observed that in practical actions such as reaching, Collection occurs when advancing the hand to grasp something. This has also been observed when the hand is lifted in preparation for a gesture. Stationing has been observed to occur once the hand ends a reaching action or when the hand returns to a rest position after engaging in gesture. In light of this, it was proposed that in conversations where speakers are engaging in gesturing, hands in a rest position of Collection might reflect an intention to continue discourse, and hands in a rest position of Stationing an intention to discontinue it. Accordingly, the occurrence of Collection and Stationing was noted in video recordings of pairs of subjects in conversations in which they were trying to agree about some topic given to them for debate. A Collected hand posture was frequently associated with continuation of an argument. A Stationed hand posture was frequently associated with a speaker’s concluding statements. Listeners were also observed to show Collection and Stationed hand shapes when speakers were engaged in continuing and concluding discourse, respectively. The relationship between speech intention and resting hand postures is discussed in relation to the possible meaningful roles that resting hand shape may have in discourse.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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