The Function and Specificity of Sensitivity to Cues to Facial Identity: An Individual-Differences Approach
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
The expertise of adults in recognising the identity of individual faces has been attributed to their exquisite sensitivity to differences among faces in the spacing of features (second-order relations). However, the reliability of individual differences and the extent to which this sensitivity predicts individuals' ability to recognise faces has not been tested directly. We administered two sets of tasks to adult females (n = 31); the tests were separated by 2 to 11 days. Individual differences in sensitivity to the spacing of facial features were reliable across days and correlated with individual differences in sensitivity to the spacing of features (doors and windows) in houses, but did not predict accuracy when participants matched facial identity across changes in point of view. Individual differences in sensitivity to featural cues to facial identity were not reliable, likely because of ceiling effects. The function and specificity of sensitivity to the spacing of features is discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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