MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081422345 · doi:10.1068/p7436

Looking at a Blurry Old Family Photo? Zoom Out!

2014· article· en· W2081422345 on OpenAlexaff
Kimeya Shahangian, İpek Oruç

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)Identity (music)Facial recognition systemPerceptionAdaptation (eye)ZoomPsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionCommunicationPattern recognition (psychology)ArtNeuroscienceAestheticsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated recognition of blurry faces and whether viewing size affects identification of such severely degraded images. Despite the common belief that face perception relies on middle spatial frequencies, the critical spatial frequency band for face recognition is not fixed but rather depends on size. This is especially pronounced at small sizes, where observers choose to utilize lower, rather than middle, frequencies to identify a face. Here we assessed recognition of identity via a novel use of the face adaptation paradigm. We examined face identity aftereffects of blurry and intact adaptors at two sizes. Intact adaptors induced significant aftereffects regardless of size. Small, but not large, blurry adaptors produced aftereffects despite the fact that both contained exactly the same level of facial detail. This suggests an inability to utilize low-frequency information for perceiving identity in large faces. We conclude that (1) size is a key factor in human face recognition processes and (2) coarse facial images are better recognized at small sizes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207