Integrating physical and social cues when forming face preferences: Differences among low and high-anxiety individuals
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
This study investigated individual differences in the integration of social (i.e., direction of social interest) and physical (i.e., apparent health) cues in a face preference test. While low-anxiety individuals demonstrated preferences for social engagement from healthy-looking faces, but not from unhealthy-looking faces, high-anxiety individuals preferred social engagement from both healthy and unhealthy individuals. Importantly, anxious individuals were not simply less discriminating in their face preferences generally: anxiety levels were positively related to the strength of overall preferences for positive social interest. Collectively, our findings show that perceptions of gaze and expression can be modulated by aspects of facial appearance and that systematic variation among individuals exists in the extent to which this modulation occurs. Furthermore, since previous studies have demonstrated hypersensitive amygdala responses among anxious individuals when viewing faces, our findings suggest that the amygdala may play an important role in determining how different facial cues are integrated in person perception.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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