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
Most studies investigating the recognition of facial expressions have focused on static displays of intense expressions. Consequently, researchers may have underestimated the importance of motion in deciphering the subtle expressions that permeate real-life situations. In two experiments, we examined the effect of motion on perception of subtle facial expressions and tested the hypotheses that motion improves affect judgment by (a) providing denser sampling of expressions, (b) providing dynamic information, (c) facilitating configural processing, and (d) enhancing the perception of change. Participants viewed faces depicting subtle facial expressions in four modes (single-static, multi-static, dynamic, and first-last). Experiment 1 demonstrated a robust effect of motion and suggested that this effect was due to the dynamic property of the expression. Experiment 2 showed that the beneficial effect of motion may be due more specifically to its role in perception of change. Together, these experiments demonstrated the importance of motion in identifying subtle facial expressions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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