MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099763206 · doi:10.1068/p7212

The Composite-Face Effect Survives Asymmetric Face Distortions

2012· article· en· W2099763206 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

VenuePerception · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)Distortion (music)PsychologySimilarity (geometry)Composite numberFace perceptionCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePerceptionImage (mathematics)NeurosciencePhilosophyAlgorithmLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In two experiments, we investigated whether adults use holistic processing even for faces that are grossly distorted because their eyes have been moved asymmetrically to violate the common layout of a face (distorting its first-order relations). To this end we used a compelling demonstration that faces are processed as wholes, the composite-face effect. Specifically, adults judged the similarity of sequentially presented top halves of normal (original condition) and distorted faces with one eye (one-eye condition) or two eyes (two-eyes condition) shifted up by an abnormal amount. Trials were either blocked by type of distortion (experiment 1) or intermixed within the experiment (experiment 2). In both experiments, participants demonstrated a composite-face effect of the same magnitude in the three conditions, a pattern suggesting that they processed holistically even faces whose first-order relations were violated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.005

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.267 · 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